Re: [directory-discuss] Freedom 0 principles are not license-limited

[Anonymous]

Svetlana Tkachenko said:

> >> "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.
> 
> This is wrong...? Read it in full:
> 
> "A program is free software if *the* *program's* *users* have the four
> essential freedoms:
> 
>     The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom
>     0)."
> 
> This means that if I develop the program in my basement and you need a
> secret code to enter, you're not a program user. CloudFlare is an ugly
> version of such secret code. In such case, it's a matter of becoming a
> program user first before software freedoms apply.

It's not the GNU Radio program that violates the freedom 0 principle,
it's the GNU Radio Foundation, Inc.  An organization, not a program.

Consequently there are many problems with your claim, each of which
stand independently:

 1) You've diverted focus to an irrelevant criteria (whether or not a
    particular software package gets the "free" badge).  No point of
    contention has been stated as to whether the GNU Radio *program*
    itself is free or non-free.  In other words, the finding as to
    whether a program is free depends on 4 criteria, but there's no
    circular dependency here.  Freedom 0 does not in itself rely on
    other text that you've bunged in external from freedom 0.  Each
    criteria is independent and does not depend on the clause stating:
    "A program is free software if the program's users have the four
    essential freedoms:".  That clause simply states what software
    gets the "free software" badge.  You've reversed the criteria
    dependency to artificially reduce the utility of a respectable
    high-level abstract principle, which is unacceptable.

 2) We need not accept someones limited interpretation of a principle.
    A moral principle is not a bit of licensing text that can be
    twisted by weasel-words to exploit a loophole.  Those who actually
    embrace freedom 0 are immune to such perversions.  We can see the
    bullshit for what it is, and since it's philosophy not law there
    is no reason to allow it to diminish and distort a respectable
    abstract concept.  This was essentially already stated in the part
    that you snipped, and remains uncountered.

 3) Your weasel-words also fail limit freedom in your freedom-opposing
    attempt to narrow the usefulness of freedom 0.  In addition to
    point 1 (above), your summary claim also falls over because a
    gnuradio user can obtain their first copy using git, thus becoming
    a "gnuradio user" (per your viewpoint not mine).  When that same
    user needs to obtain replacement copies thereafter, their usage is
    dictated by GNU Radio Foundation, Inc., contrary to freedom 0.

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