* Thomas Lord <lord@basiscraft.com> [2022-02-01 07:05]:
>
> I have tried, but I have not seen in the above paragraph how anybody
> prevented you to use the MIDI controller for other purposes.
>
Example: I have a small MIDI keyboard controller called
the "Arturia Minilab mkII".
I can use its most basic capabilities with linux music
production software like jack, or pipewire, and
various libre synthesizers, drum machines, effects
stacks, and Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) software
like Ardour or QTractor (and many more).
But... the device has non-volatile memory to configure its settings
and to switch on-the-fly among configurations that I can not use
without running proprietary software (therefore, I can't use them
period).
So it is issue of proprietary software, not hardware. In that case
keep fostering free software. As would you resolve the problem that
you can put inside free software, you could eventually program it in
such a way that you get functions you want.
However, comparison of proprietary software in the context of freedom
zero to use it how you wish is not logical and in the context.
I suggest you read this page:
Freedom Zero
https://girtby.net/archives/2008/01/30/freedom-zero/
and I do not emphasize what the page says, neither if I agree or not,
but only to examples of freedom zero.
As there you will find example with Mac OS X:
Mac OS X does not satisfy freedom 0 because according to the license
you are not permitted to run it on non-Apple hardware. Most
annoyingly this includes virtual hardware, although this restriction
has apparently been relaxed in Mac OS X Server
Maybe such software cannot run or function on non-Apple hardware, but
license is the legal document preventing the freedom to attempt
running software how user wish and want.
Now please compare:
1) When you receive such software you receive license preventing your
freedom to run it how you wish.
2) When you received MIDI hardware I bet you did not receive any kind
of license preventing you to use MIDI hardware how you wish, for
example, telling you that you are not allowed to use it as
explosive detonator.
It matters little if MIDI hardware can function as explosive detonator
but nobody legally prevent you doing it. Manufacturers or sellers may
have guarantee conditions that they will not repair your hardware if
it was used improperly. But that also does not prevent you using it
improperly. It only prevents you getting the guaranteed repair.
And the device has very cool seeming LED backlights under
various pads (force-sensitive ("velocity sensative" in midi-speak)
buttons). If I submit to the proprietary software I can configure
different colors and different triggers to turn the lights on
and off -- but there is no libre software to do this.
It is matter of proprietary versus free software in the device. It is
not matter of hardware.
You can legally use (comparable to "run") that hardware for whatever
purpose you wish and want. There is no comparable conflict with
Freedom Zero as in software because nobody is preventing you legally
to use ("run") it how you wish and want.
"Using" or "running for any purpose" does not imply "functioning". So
do not mistake those terms.
Let me quote more from that website where they say the following
statement came from FSF:
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of
person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for
any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to
communicate about it with the developer or any other specific
entity. In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not
the developer’s purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for
your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then
free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose
your purposes on her.
That means there is no discrimination. I don't think that any MIDI
hardware in the world ever has been sold with the "license" preventing
you to use MIDI hardware free for your purposes.
Thus it is not comparable, not in the context, to speak of hardware
and freedom zero as there is no actual objective problem with
hardware. Don't mistake "function" with "purpose".
Another example:
================
Here is the real example of absence of freedom zero:
https://github.com/gnusupport/AVideo/blob/master/LICENSE
Where it says:
"The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
Purpose of using the software for porn distribution is considered by
their authors "evil". But for majority of people watching porn and
enjoying it, it is considered "good". It is vague constraint where
author retains control over the user and users' purposes. It is
absence of Freedom Zero.
When you purchase MIDI hardware you do not get similar license as it
is not necessary, it is hardware. You can do with hardware in general
what you wish and use it for whatever purpose you wish and want.
The problem of absence of Freedom Zero does not exist in the domain of
hardware sales.
Thus, I am blocked from using the full capabilities of the hardware
by the company hoarding the device-specific protocols that can
operate those features and doing that to try to trap me into using
proprietary software.
It is not relevant to Freedom Zero.
Cell phones are very similar. You can not replace the operating
system on any popular model with free software.
It is not relevant to Freedom Zero.
Jean
Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/