Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 20:07:02 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>> In the early days of GNU, you'd request a physical copy via mail.
>
> That wasn't discriminatory.  They didn't say liberals had to go
> through those hoops, while registered republicans could download it,
> for example.

That's not a proper comparison.

If I were flooded with requests from some address beacuse they were
proxying them from around the world, I might very well request that the
post office return them to the sender rather than deliver them to me.

>> You can send me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy.  You can mail me
>> some writable media with postage and I'll mail it back with a copy,
>> and maybe throw in some other GNU software as a bonus.
>
> Are you willing to repackage the website-hosted documentation that is
> excluded from the git-downloadable package?  Would you mind doing that
> periodically, since the web-published content changes?  If someone
> wants to edit the gnuradio wiki, can they send you update
> instructions?

None of that is relevant.  Your freedoms apply only to the software you
receive.  It provides no guarantee that you'll ever get an up to date
version of the software.  If you have the binary for version X, you
ought to have the source code for version X, and the documentation for
version X, and that you shall have.

> Whether you realize it or not, your comments attempt to support a
> precedent that will make it easy for more GNU projects to become
> exclusive clubs in walled-gardens, while at the same time accepting
> charitable contributions of code and money from the public relies on
> them.

I explicitly stated otherwise.

> RMS has clarified *his stance*.  It's important to realize that he is
> not defending user freedom, but rather the GNU project that has become
> freedom-hostile, for which FSF is responsible.

This thread has been quoting the free software definition---the four
freedoms---that he himself wrote.  "His stance" _is_ the definition.

> Clarity on the status quo is only useful to the extent that we realize
> what must change to restore and retain the public trust amid new
> threats that control people who (quite rightly) don't want to be
> controlled.  What is clear is that we've not yet reached that level of
> clarity on the problem as a whole.

Yes, but let's not misattribute.


>> If the disagreement is the use of CloudFlare, talk about CloudFlare.
>> It isn't a software freedom issue.
>
> CloudFlare is the instrument by which software freedom 0 and a long
> list of civil liberties are being denied.  It's also the instrument by
> which security is compromised.

I don't feel at this point that anyone here is going to convince you
that Freedom 0 cannot possibly be violated in this circumstance.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05
Old: 2217 5B02 E626 BC98 D7C0  C2E5 F22B B815 8EE3 0EAB
https://mikegerwitz.com

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature