Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)

> yes
> lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)

So you have you own definition? Fucking nice!

> > Ignorance != lack of freedom (which demonstrates, again, how some
> > people try to attribute an incorrect meaning to the word "freedom").
>
>
> the point is that ppl have no way to determine the origin.
> they are not ignorant, but mislead.

And you, wise man, are able to force them to sanity. That's again, Fucking nice!

> of course it is an indirect consequence of the ruleset, but still a consequence.

better try and look at *all* consequences.

> > You're talking about restrictions of the new product, not of the
> > original source (see my comments above).
>
>
> yes, but this new product is the result of the permissive license.
> in my opinion it makes sense to track the effects of a license further
> than direct usage.

Some people even think communism must make sense. Because with this
great invention you can track effects even of more than just licenses.

>
> >> - so removing restriction might mean less freedom
> >
> > _Never_ for the original source. Btw, I really hope that you can see
> > the contradiction in your own statement.
>
>
> well i'm talking about the resulting sum of freedom of ppl (for whom
> the original src might not be available (lack of knowledge, false
> advertisment etc..))
>
> (the example was a "proof by contradiction" to show that number of
> restriction is not always a good measure of freedom, so the
> contradiction is fine there)

Well, you *are* a communist, aren't you?

> > MIT/BSD just make software free.
> >
> > GPL on the other hand is not just trying to make software free, but
> > also to govern in what way the receiver can use it. Now this may or
> > may not be morally right, but that's a discussion all in itself. What
> > isn't a discussion is that it's a restriction of freedom.
> >
> > In some situations, a benevolent dictator may be better for the people
> > than total freedom, perhaps even better than democracy. Regardless of
> > the level of benevolence though, a benevolent dictator is still a
> > dictator, no matter what way you put it.
>
>
> yes, we are talking about different terms
> i deliberately used an alternative definition of freedom (and included
> all the dictatorship), because it makes sense to me.
>
> the restrictions in GPL may have moral/political/game theoretical
> roots but imho it's valid to call it freedom.

Oh so it's valid, because it makes sense to you? Fucking nice!

> yet another example (driving rules):
>
> (a) everyone should drive on the right side of the road
> (b) any side of the road can be used
>
> by "usual" freedom definition (b) is more free, it allows one to use
> _either_ side of the road.
> in reality with (b) one can use _neither_ side of the road (instant
> traffic jam, deadlocks at crossroads).
>
> with all the restrictions, (a) makes sure that ppl actually can use at
> least one side of the road, thus "globally" (a) provides more free
> choices (1 insted of 0).

The difference is, you can offer an unlimited amount of software apps
in closed source and it will not hinder anyone in doing what he'd like
to do. Even if they are all copys of the same public domain code...

-- 
hiro