[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

From: Alexandre François Garreau
Subject: Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:12:27 +0100

Le samedi 22 février 2020, 22:52:11 CET Jean Louis a écrit :
> * Alex Taylor <> [2020-02-22 10:31]:
> > Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being
> > called the "social contract".   If the text is read, it will be seen
> > that it has three parts.
> > 
> > The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years
> > ago.  No problem there, we all agree with those.  Or do we?  Well I
> > personally do.  But GNU has for many years received contributions from
> > people who do not agree with its philosophy.  Many such contributors
> > are even employed by proprietary software companies.   So if
> > contributors are pressured into "endorsing" these it is likely to
> > discourage some of the very people who have helped us.
> Yet, free software freedoms are not analysed and presented well
> enough, so I think, majority of people would like to police it, if
> they would be aware of it.
> Let me give you example on The freedom to run the program as you wish,
> for any purpose (freedom 0).
> Now imagine the freedom for North Korean leaders to run the GNU
> software to launch nuclear rockets towards Boston, USA. Would you be
> in agreement on it?

Freedom 0 doesn’t apply to States.  The four freedoms, which are about 
licences, are juridical one.  A State decide the law, so a state can do 
anything, be it allowed or not.  So a State doesn’t need it, it doesn’t 
care.  You misinterpret freedom 0 the same way as Samuel used to do.  As a 
generally-social/individual, all-encompassing, one.  While it’s only about 
law and what’s you’re legally allowed to do.

> If you really stand for freedom 0, then you should be in agreement for
> it, it is about integrity.
> Even if rockets would be directed to your own city, one should be in
> agreement with it, that is the value one should stand for.
> I don't think that majority of free software users is really aware
> what that freedom means.

That is the tiring problem of “ethical” licences ><

And they can actually get as legally wrong as to ask stuff to legislators 
or states, as if it changed anything (beside distroying copyleft).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]