[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] freedom #0

From: Will Hill
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] freedom #0
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:47:12 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748)

Software owners might interpret their violation of freedom 0 as an excuse to 
violate your privacy.  Microsoft's TOS for Vista and later demands the 
ability to inspect and delete your files for licensing, law enforcement, and 
to protect the safety of Microsoft employees.  If some of the software on 
such a system forbids writing bad things about Microsoft, for example, the OS 
blanket demand would allow them to use the OS's built in file indexing system 
for that purpose.  Thanks to Snowden, we know they betray user's privacy, 
even while publically claiming to protect it.  

That might not be what was asked but it is very interesting.  It's an example 
of a violation most people would not imagine and shows how one violation 
leads to another.    

On Tuesday 02 June 2015, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
> Yes, there are such anti-features, but that is irrelevant to the
> original question since most of the terms of a typical software license
> cannot be validated by software (whether free software or proprietary.)
> That doesn't make the terms any less real or binding.

reply via email to

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