Freedom to take freedom (was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Accountants need MS...)

[Lee Braiden]

Hi all,

On Monday 21 January 2008 21:31:03 Dave Crossland wrote:
> Debian rejected them because Red Hat made a RETARDED additional
> anti-tivoisation restriction. But this is a lot better than non-free
> Microsoft fonts.

You know... with most things in the free software movement, I'm right there, 
in total agreement with Stallman and the FSFE and all.  Sometimes I wonder 
though... if we agree in principle that some freedoms (such as the freedom to 
enslave) should not be given, on the basis that they take freedom from 
others... then why do we flat-out reject additional restrictions?

For instance, I for one think it would be a good thing to restrict the right 
to use my software for military purposes.  I also think the GPLv3 
anti-tivoisation measure, and the Affero measures are both good ideas.

In the long run, the freedom to hurt and kill takes freedom from others.  
Restricting those abilities gives more people freedom to live, and hence to 
breathe, and to download software, run it, etc. than they would have 
otherwise.

It seems to me that we acknowledge this fact with the GPL, but then draw a 
line right after that basic level of acknowledgement, and decide that the 
rest is impractical.  And maybe it is... maybe if we all want to work 
together on coding free software, then such a low common denominator is 
necessary.

I dunno... I'm not really advocating change here.  It would be nice to see 
that some others are aware of the trade we're making, though, I suppose?

I suppose what I'm saying is that, when a group tries to implement additional, 
laudable restrictions, like anti-tivoisation, we should probably respect 
their dilemma a bit more, even if we can't get behind it for technical 
(implementation/enforcement) or practical (common denominator) reasons.


-- 
Lee Braiden
http://peaceforge.org

"You can't keep blaming yourself.
Just blame yourself once, and move on."
                      --- Homer Simpson