[LAU] Some disturbing news

[Louigi Verona]

David,

"I don't see that you have a more convincing basis for your own decry of
abstracting a moral position into the definition of software freedoms."

Not entirely sure I understand what you're saying here, but I have written
a 70 page basis for disagreeing with Stallman.

I know it is an investment, especially if you feel strongly about the
issue. But at the very least you can appreciate that I tried to offer a
convincing basis.

You also say that the principles have either to be agreed with or not and
that they cannot be proven. I completely disagree with that. I don't view
ethics as dogma. I am a proponent of ethics derived from reason. This could
be the biggest disagreement, and, in fact, a key disagreement we might have.

As for the rest of the things that you've written, like that I don't want
to improve the world and so on, you have made it very clear throughout this
discussion that you don't want to treat me in a charitable way and instead
just strawman most if not all I write. So, excuse me if I will not reply to
your comments from now on. I am not offended or anything, I just don't see
our conversations exploring interesting directions.



On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Thorsten Wilms <self at thorstenwilms.com>
wrote:

> On 04.06.2018 11:41, Louigi Verona wrote:
>
>> Hey Thorsten!
>>
>> Thank you for your comment. I have not only read Stallman, I have studied
>> his writings very closely and wrote a large work on his philosophy which
>> can be found here:
>> https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philoso
>> phy&a=philosophy_freedoms
>>
>
> That whole thing seems to depend on a reversal. It's not 4 Freedoms
> because non-free software is claimed to be unjust, but non-free software is
> said to be unjust because it denies users the 4 Freedoms. Then you continue
> to play down all of the associated issues. You should really try the "less
> is more" approach, some time.
>
>
> "The problem starts once you do anything that encourages another person to
>> use non-free software, because in doing so, they will give up the 4
>> freedoms."
>>
>> This is not a convincing argument, because you first need to prove that
>> these 4 freedoms matter. What problems are they solving?
>>
>
> How about the other way? What problems does _not_ having the 4 freedoms
> create?
>
> Optional:
> - You may not be allowed to run the program as you wish, for any purpose,
> i.e., an EULA might be in place.
>
> Always:
> - You cannot study and learn from the code.
> - You cannot do even the simplest modification to adapt the program to you
> needs/wishes (aside from reverse engineering methods).
> - You may not just hand copies to others, or point them to freely
> available sources to help them out / speed up collaboration.
> - You may not join forces with the authors, e.g. by providing patches
> (aside from getting hired ...)
> - You cannot modify the software for others.
> - You cannot fork the project.
> - You cannot pick up the project after the original author went away or
> perished.
> - You will have a hard time working with data with no maintained,
> accessible program to read it left around.
>
> Now some may say unnecessarily burdening users with those problems is
> wrong (/unjust/unethical/immoral).
>



-- 
Louigi Verona
https://www.patreon.com/droning
https://louigiverona.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/linux-audio-user/attachments/20180604/b6a6498c/attachment.html>