[directory-discuss] Freedom 0 principles are not license-limited (was: s/w that requires a middleman..)

[Anonymous]

Svetlana Tkachenko said:

> Dear Adonay Felipe Nogueira,
> 
> "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
> (freedom 0)." does not include users who do not have access to the
> program.

Of course it does.  "Freedom 0" in the "What is free software?" is a
principle, not limited by the GFDL.  In fact, principles can not be
limited by any contract, license, or even a law, unless such text were
referenced by the principle itself.

And even then, we need not accept it.  If someone were to
hypothetically add the perverse limitation you describe to the text of
the freedom 0 principle, I would not accept it.  I would embrace
freedom 0 and disregard such a freedom-limiting act of sabotage.

Principles can be implemented by mirroring them into a license, which
can then be limited artificially and generally undermined, but no one
has yet brought up any such manifestation of freedom 0.  We're talking
about the principle itself from the "What is free software?" article,
which has been violated by the GNU Radio Foundation, Inc.

> It includes "program's users" only, i.e. those who already
> got a hold of a copy.

Citation needed.

Where are you quoting from?  You have a bad habit of not attributing
quotes.  It seems you make these quotes up.  This text certainly does
not appear in the "What is free software?" article.  It's also not in
the GFDL, which you've wrongly connected to freedom 0 here:

> Please do not call it a GNU FDL violation. Thanks.

You'll have to quote.  Adonay did not claim a violation of freedom 0
to be a GFDL violation.

There are 2 GFDL violations under discussion so far, but not in
connection with freedom 0:

 1) "..a free program should come with manuals.."
 2) "..standard-conforming simple HTML.."

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