Re: [directory-discuss] s/w that requires a middleman to liberate it -- is it free?

[Ineiev]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:34:18PM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
> Ineiev said:
> 
> > > Please note that this is a bandwagon fallacy (e.g. "one million
> > > smokers can't be wrong..").
> > 
> > I don't say we can't be wrong. I say that we don't understand your
> > points.
> 
> You've used the bandwagon fallacy when you said:
> 
> > Please note that this is not just Svetlana's and Ian's position,
> > it's shared by all people on this list who have spoken so far
> > except you,
> 
> The "one million smokers can't be wrong.." is a model instance of
> someone else using the bandwagon fallacy, mentioned purely as a
> reminder as to what the bandwagon fallacy is.  Here you've taken that
> classic scenario and (strawman-like) you've separated your claim from
> the example.  That's insufficient.  Your bandwagon fallacy
> (specifically the "Authority of the Many" variety) remains a fallacy.

I still don't understand. what was the actual claim 
as opposed to the example?

> The court can ask GNU Radio what they meant, but it's not GNU Radio
> who drafted the GFDL.  It'd be like asking Donald Trump what he means
> by "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.." in the 13th
> amendment.  Trump didn't write it.

The analogy is not complete. it wasn't Trump who gave that amendment
its legal force, but it's exactly GNU Radio copyright holders who
authorize using GNU Radio. I think even if they use a license
text drafted by someone else they still may have a say
in what terms apply to GNU Radio.

> We obviously know that GNU Radio didn't draft the GFDL,

This is not that simple. in fact, the FSF holds copyright both
for GNU Radio and the GFDL.

> To the extent that GNU Radio may be treated as drafting the document
> despite copying a template verbatim, this works against them anyway.
> Those who draft contracts with ambiguity are subject to the
> interpretation that is least favorable to the author in the course of
> legal problems.  This is the legal system's way of compelling those
> who draft legally binding text to be unambiguous.
> 
> For example, if you're a landlord and draft a lease with the rule "no
> dirty pets allowed" without defining "dirty", and then you try to use
> this clause against your tenants, the tenants will say they bathe
> their pet pig regularly and have interpretted this to comply with the
> lease.  The court will side with the tenants because the landlord
> drafted the ambiguity.

I'm not sure the analogy holds, license is not a contract
(and I'm even less sure the court will side with the tenants).

> Not that it matters, because so far we don't have a "conflict in
> license interpretations", as neither you or I have yet called out an
> interpretation discrepency in the licensing text.

Why, you say that GNU Radio distribution violates the license, and
GNU Radio maintainers don't seem to agree. do you deny this? do you
deny this is a conflict in license interpretations?

> > > You're recycling an argument that has already been made.  And it
> > > was already defeated here:
> > 
> > You can't claim it's defeated until your opponents understand your
> > points, and so far we don't.
> 
> Of course I can.
> 
> In formal debate an argument not countered is an argument that stands.
> You have to be sharp enough to understand your opponent to succeed in
> a debate.

You don't understand me: you continually interpret my words
in a sense I've never implied (I assume that "to succeed" and
"to defeat" mean the same).

> If you try to debate on a debate team or in a courtroom,
> your failure to understand is wholly a disaster for you and those
> you're trying represent.
> 
> In a formal high-stakes situation, I'm quite happy for you to not
> understand what I've said.  But in this case, I'm willing clarify
> whatever point you're struggling with.  ATM you've only said vaguely
> that you don't understand a whole post.  It's very cute that you think
> this lack of understanding on your part means you've succeeded.

I don't think I succeed. I think that both parties fail.

> > > Your claim that "the position of the GNU project" does not favor GNU
> > > user freedom in this case
> > 
> > Please don't attribute to me the clams I've never made.
> > this is unhelpful.
> 
> I see why you would take an issue with that.  First realize that I
> took a direct quote.  That is, speaking on behalf of a lot of people,
> you made the general claim that this text from an advice guide:
> 
>   "The criterion for free software is not about who has “access” to
>    the program; the four essential freedoms concern what a user that
>    has a copy of the program is allowed to do with it."
> 
> is the same as "Svetlana's and Ian's position" and also the same
> position as "all people on this list who have spoken so far" and also
> the same as "the position of the GNU project".  This is *your* claim,
> however far-reaching.  Presumabley that much is clear.  Although if
> you want to deny this, feel free to clarify, and tell us what you
> actually meant to say.

I'll try. it's you who put Sveltana and Ian together, so I suppose
that it is not necessary to explain that they agree. Ian pointed
to words-to-avoid[0] which is a page where the position
of the GNU project is explained, so I think they agree, too.

WRT "other people", in fact, it's only one more person who spoke [1].

It seems to me that nobody on this list positively stated
they shared your viewpoint (apart from you).

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Access
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-01/msg00083.html

> Now for (what I suspect is) the point of contention: Your position (as
> you've expressed it so far in replies to me) is clearly *against*
> those GNU-user freedoms(*).

I don't think I speak against freedoms. I just think that
there are means unappropriate for achieving some of them.

> Of course, it's a wild claim that you've made, as the whole
> GNU project is not something that you can claim has a single undivided
> position, which happens to be right beside you on team
> pro-Corporate-America.

I may not understand what you say here, but yes, the whole
GNU project has a single undivided position.

> (*) but exceptionally you apparently endorse the "4 essential
> freedoms", although you've still not addressed circumstance of GNU
> Radio violating the users right to use their software how they want
> ("freedom 0").

I'm sorry, I have to beg for a concrete instaince of this violation.

> > > doesn't only fail legally, it fails also as a philosophy in light
> > > of the full treatise on the topic.  The SaaSS article was a work
> > > devoted to entirely treating the scenario of access denial.  BTW,
> > > this was also already mentioned in the above-cited post.
> > 
> > In 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-01/msg00070.html,
> > I see no reference to any article; could you be more specific?
> 
> I referenced both the Gnu Free Documentation License and the SaaSS
> philosophy in that post.  If you need links, these are the links:
> 
> https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/directory/fdl-1.3-standalone.html
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

Thank you. the article was written after the GFDL; do you think
the requirements of GFDL were written with that article in mind?

> > OK, but I see no violations. please list them again.
> 
> The GFDL states:
> 
>   "free software needs free documentation: a free program should come
>    with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does."

This is too general, the actual freedoms need to be stated more
specifically; of course, not all possible freedoms are guarded
by the GFDL. could you point at violated parts of the GFDL
that discuss specific freedoms?

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature