Re: [directory-discuss] GNU Radio situation

[Anonymous]

Svetlana Tkachenko said:

> I agree that "captchas would not make the content be nonfree." The
> captchas do not affect our freedoms to copy, edit, and share the
> content, 

Among the "four essential freedoms" published here:

  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

there is:

 "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)"

In a gnu users exercise of this freedom, they encounter this:

===8<------------------------------
$ 
freedom_hostile_app=http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz
$ http_proxy=127.0.0.1:8118 wget "$freedom_hostile_app"
--2017-01-21 14:25:16--  
http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz
Resolving gnuradio.org (gnuradio.org)... 104.28.6.113
Connecting to gnuradio.org (gnuradio.org)|104.28.6.113|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2017-01-21 14:25:17 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
===8<------------------------------

> once we have it through another venue (i.e. in a copy of GNU radio).

You've just recycled a defeated point that was tried by Ian Kelling.
The nuts and bolts of this claim is: "If we could only disregard user
freedoms in pursuit of freedom, we can then call it free."  Nice try.
Let's call that "the Ian Kelling principle".

When freedom is lost in an attempt to obtain something that would
otherwise be free, it's nonfree because freedom is lost inherently; in
the persuit thereof.  Your use of the Ian Kelling principle in this
case also neglects a fundamental characteristic of privacy.  That is:
privacy is like virginity; once you lose it, you can't have it back.

> As an example to illustrate the point, I could mirror www.gnu.org
> and require all users to install silverlight (it is a proprietary
> program made by Microsoft) to read my content, and that wouldn't
> make www.gnu.org non-free.

Indeed it wouldn't, nor did anyone say or imply the contrary.  Of
course any 3rd party can repackage something in a nonfree manner
without changing the freedom of the original distribution.

The analogy fails because it's the gnuradio.org-served distribution we
are talking about, not svetlanasgnuradioredistribution.microsoft.com.

> If www.gnu.org people started requiring silverlight to read their
> website, and I maintained a copy which is accessible using free
> software, their copy wouldn't make the content non-free, either.

Of course it would.  From
https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/directory/fdl-1.3-standalone.html:

  "suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without
   markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using
   a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML"

Are you trying to claim in parallel that in your hypothetical scenario
your personal distribution would then consequently make the original
distribution free?  You seem to be trying to imply this, but without
the conviction to say it.  Please say directly what you mean, so
people are not caught up trying to dance around a dodgy attempt to
setup a straw man.

> If the captcha is indeed non-free, query their webmaster, perhaps at
> address@hidden .

CloudFlare is not in directory.fsf.org.  Gnuradio is.  The scope of
the discussion is about proper flagging of non-free software and
documentation artifacts in that database.

I have no more interest in asking CloudFlare, Inc. to become ethical
than I do in talking to a brick wall.  OTOH, if you think contacting
CloudFlare will help, I won't stand in your way.

>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-01/msg00066.html
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-01/msg00076.html

> I find these messages hard to read. Please provide the meaning
> instead of linking to them.

Can you be specific about what your struggle is?  Those articles use
correct English, my mother tongue.  What is your native language?  If
it's French or Dutch, I can try to write a translated version but it
will be rough.  Please be specific about what you're not
understanding.

BTW, the links are necessary.  This is how sources are cited and also
how we avoid repeating information that then adds redundant bulk to
the list.  Please follow links and read the whole discussion before
replying, because as I've pointed out you've looped an argument that
was previously addressed.

--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so my address will be unusable.
List archives will be monitored.