[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 <altsamtaylor@gmail.com> [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).
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, (continued)
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2020/02/23
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Siddhesh Poyarekar, 2020/02/25
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2020/02/25
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Siddhesh Poyarekar, 2020/02/25
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2020/02/25
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Mark Wielaard, 2020/02/27
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Siddhesh Poyarekar, 2020/02/27
- Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, siddhesh, 2020/02/27
- Message not available
- Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Alexandre François Garreau, 2020/02/27
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Jean Louis, 2020/02/22
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Mike Gerwitz, 2020/02/22
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2020/02/22
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Leo Famulari, 2020/02/24
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed, Daniel Pocock, 2020/02/27