Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Why non-FLOSS is unethical? There is a lot of ethic systems. For example ,a meat is unethical for me. I'm an atheist and atheism is unethical for somebody else. Etc.
And I can't see any method to convince followers of one ethical system to adopt another ethical system. For example, convince a radical muslim to accept atheism as ethical thing. Thus, ethic is (mostly) area of emotions and dogmas.
If you saying "You must not [use a proprietary software]/[eat meat]/[beat your wife], because this is unethical", then it is equivalent of "You must not eat apples, because apples are unappetizing", IMHO.
I think it's the only argument, however subjective it might be.
Religion is not ethics and ethics are not religion. Don't confuse the two.
>Religion is not ethics and ethics are not religion.
How could I confuse them? I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion, but I have my personal ethics.
Ethics are not the only argument for FLOSS.
Security, support, costs, all come to mind when it comes to use FLOSS.
The ethical side of it... It has it's place, but honestly I think some FLOSS ideas might as well be considered unethical, so it is a matter of balance, in which two persons can disagree in many points while agreeing in many others.
you might want to see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
I know RMS likes to nitpick... so what?
The reasons I pointed out are totally fine arguments to convince someone to let go of windows and use free software is good. You can teach them later.
>Ethics are not the only argument for FLOSS.
You're right. But the ethical argument is the most absurd for me.
Ethics is the whole point of Free Software.
ssdclickofdeath FTW
>Ethics is the whole point of Free Software.
Also, there is political argument for FLOSS
Why is it "absurd"? Your whole argument on this page seems to be from a stance of dodgy semantics and argument for arguments sake.
I agree that "ethics" can be a moveable feast. We could come up with some examples from the Roman arena to the temples of the Aztecs to show how the "ethics" of one society does not match up with those of another.
A stark and simplistic call to "ethics" that mirrors the type of call to moral rectitude that effectively only references itself as the true moral guardian, without real explanation, is not a great idea.
However, I've not seen the free software movement making this kind of call to authority.
Your argumentitivness seems more to stem from problems you have with religion than a discussion over how to argue the benefits of free software. It seems a pointless and divisive argument to be having here.
>However, I've not seen the free software movement making this kind of call to authority.
Because ethics of FSF based on the ethical dogmat: "freedom is the highest value"
Unfortunately, no-one can prove this statement. It's like a religion, you must belive in this dogmat.
>Your argumentitivness seems more to stem from problems you have with religion
What problems?
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 10:30, name at domain a scris:
> Because ethics of FSF based on the ethical dogmat: "freedom is the
> highest value"
Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them.
> Unfortunately, no-one can prove this statement.
No proof needed. Every animal strives for freedom (even the domestic
ones). Humans are no different.
If you believe otherwise, distribute WikiLeaks documents and notify the
police to arrest you; use corrupt, restricted GNU/Linux distributions or
even proprietary systems like Windows and Mac OS; or, why not, become a
slave to a farmer and give him all your identity documents to burn them
or do as he pleases.
> It's like a religion you must belive in this dogmat.
You are confusing movements with religions. Political movements
(socialism, liberalism, environmentalism, etc) are all based on beliefs,
ethics, principles and they promote their values. The free software
movement is no different then any other movement.
Religions believe there is one or more higher powers which controls or
oversees humans. They can employ movements too. The free software
movement believes no higher power should exist over people, common
users. The Church of Emacs is a joke.
By expressing and supporting the view that the free software movement is
illogical just like a religion you are attacking us, the free software
community. You shouldn't expect us to agree with you. Instead, go to
OSI, Microsoft and Apple; they already agree with you. You are even more
perverse then they are: you are pretending to be a free software
supporter to attack the community from inside.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
"No proof needed. Every animal strives for freedom (even the domestic
ones). Humans are no different."
Freedom is definitly not the highest goal for animals. Many of them put themselves under the control of a hirarchy (in tribes, for instance) in order to increase their chances of survival.
You're making biologically false claims.
Survival is the highest goal for every animal, and that means food etc.
I think it's a very good question if freedom should be the highest goal for every human or not and you're making the discussion way too easy by just saying "no proof needed".
Without doubt, freedom is extremly important and without being free to a great extent we cannot achieve a real form of happiness.
On the other hand we can consider if it will make our lives better if we trade away *some* freedom in *some* situations.
For instance, marriage contains giving away a bit of your freedom, and maybe it's worth doing so.
"You are even more
perverse then they are"
"
3. Personal attacks: We don't tolerate personal attacks here. We encourage discussion. Disagree with others and challenge their ideas."
When are you leaving?
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 12:39, name at domain a scris:
> "No proof needed. Every animal strives for freedom (even the domestic
> ones). Humans are no different."
>
> Freedom is definitly not the highest goal for animals. Many of them
> put themselves under the control of a hirarchy (in tribes, for
> instance) in order to increase their chances of survival.
Hierarchy has nothing to do with slavery. For instance, I am not a slave
of Ruben for trusting his lead of the Trisquel project. And there a lot
of other examples.
> "You are even more
> perverse then they are"
>
> "
> 3. Personal attacks: We don't tolerate personal attacks here. We
> encourage discussion. Disagree with others and challenge their
> ideas."
The guidelines were already violated by the perverse person. It's up to
each one of the members of this free software community to judge if it's
a personal attack, or that is merely a good observation.
> When are you leaving?
A free software supporter can't be forced to leave a free software
community for the sole reason that he defended its values. It does not
go the same way with the perverse people who are attacking the community
using false pretexts (I want to completely learn exactly what I want in
GNU/Linux, Is ethic really good argument for "FLOSS", etc).
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
"Hierarchy has nothing to do with slavery. For instance, I am not a slave
of Ruben for trusting his lead of the Trisquel project. And there a lot
of other examples."
You're permanently defining the meaning of the word "freedom" so you can reach somehow the conclusion that nothing takes away your freedom except of real slavery (which doesn't exist anymore in most western countries) or non-free software.
According to your argumentation, people in the third reich were perfectly free since they just had to obey a strong hierarchy and this - according to you - has nothing to do with slavery.
If an animal agrees to join a tribe, its daily life will be controlled by the tribe leader to a great extent.
If you marry a girl, she will sometimes make sure that you're doing this and not doing that - earning money for the children and not cheating with the woman next door.
You lost freedom, though it is not the extrem form called "slavery".
"The guidelines were already violated by the perverse person."
So now everyone can violate the guidelines at will cause they "were already violated"? That's nonsense.
You violated them just like the persons you were accusing and you're not better than them.
"A free software supporter can't be forced to leave a free software
community for the sole reason that he defended its values. "
You violated the guidelines and hence can be forced to leave. I called your attitude once pharisee like. You made it easy for other members
"to judge if it's
a personal attack, or that is merely a good observation" - your own words.
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 14:40, name at domain a scris:
> real slavery (which doesn't exist anymore in most western
> countries)
By law it's forbidden in most of the countries, not only in western
ones. Nevertheless, slavery is still a practice even in western
countries. It was not only once I read of immigrants being enslaved by
farmers in Spain. Also, it shouldn't be news for anyone that pimps
enslave prostitutes and a lot of cases have been reported all over the
world, western and eastern.
> According to your argumentation, people in the third reich were
> perfectly free since they just had to obey a strong hierarchy and
> this - according to you - has nothing to do with slavery.
If you are denied the freedom to change the hierarchy and leadership of
your community which is based on scarce resources such as land, then you
are a slave to the regime. Observe it is not the case with free
software, for which unlimited number of copies can be made, so it's not
a scarce resource, as land and property in general is. Perverse people
are doing the propaganda that digital works are property and thus should
be treated as such.
> If an animal agrees to join a tribe, its daily life will be controlled
> by the tribe leader to a great extent.
If the leadership or the hierarchy is denying him freedoms, he can
choose to overthrow that leadership or he can break from the group,
becoming a lonely wolf and stay that way or build his own group. The
same goes with humans (and human history).
> If you marry a girl, she will sometimes make sure that you're doing
> this and not doing that - earning money for the children and not
> cheating with the woman next door.
> You lost freedom, though it is not the extrem form called "slavery".
That is not slavery. What you are describing is being honest with the
spouse and working as a team, sharing income and spending it as decided
by both partners. However, if you believe your freedoms are denied, you
can break up with the spouse, becoming single and stay that way or build
a new family.
> "The guidelines were already violated by the perverse person."
>
> So now everyone can violate the guidelines at will cause they "were
> already violated"? That's nonsense.
> You violated them just like the persons you were accusing and you're
> not better than them.
You are no better then them and I put you in the same group with them.
> "A free software supporter can't be forced to leave a free software
> community for the sole reason that he defended its values. "
>
> You violated the guidelines and hence can be forced to leave. I called
> your attitude once pharisee like.
Of course you did. Free software supporters like myself are "pharisees"
and "FSF parrots". Your group made it very clear.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
"If the leadership or the hierarchy is denying him freedoms, he can
choose to overthrow that leadership or he can break from the group,"
Many hierarchies deny freedoms.
Only because you can re-gain your freedom doesn't make you more free at the moment.
If you see it that way, I could argue that proprietary software is not so bad, since I can replace it with free software at any time.
"If the leadership or the hierarchy is denying him freedoms, he can
choose to overthrow that leadership or he can break from the group,
becoming a lonely wolf and stay that way or build his own group. The
same goes with humans (and human history)."
You were originally claiming that animals value freedom above all.
The point that not every animal does what you're describing (becoming a lonely wolf) proves you wrong.
But you somehow seem to believe that it's not a lack of freedom if you can escape the situation somehow, even if putting yourself under great risk (like an animal trying to fight against the leader or maybe dying without the group).
With this definition, almost everyone is perfectly free, even most slaves, and proprietary software is not a problem (you escape the situation any time by replacing it with free software or not using a computer).
Like I said, also people under control of a tyrannic regime can "choose to overthrow the leadership". This posibility doesn't make them more free.
You used the same argument for marriage, but it leads you to serious contradictions.
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 16:11, name at domain a scris:
> "If the leadership or the hierarchy is denying him freedoms, he can
> choose to overthrow that leadership or he can break from the group,"
>
> Many hierarchies deny freedoms.
That doesn't make hierarchy wrong, that doesn't mean all hierarchies
deny freedom. I am against anarchy.
> Only because you can re-gain your freedom doesn't make you more free
> at the moment.
I have never stated otherwise.
> If you see it that way, I could argue that proprietary software is not
> so bad, since I can replace it with free software at any time.
No, proprietary software is always bad. Software is useful and is not
always bad. Free software is good.
Analogous, dictatorships are always bad. Hierarchy is useful and is not
always bad. Democracy implies hierarchy and it's good.
> "If the leadership or the hierarchy is denying him freedoms, he can
> choose to overthrow that leadership or he can break from the group,
> becoming a lonely wolf and stay that way or build his own group. The
> same goes with humans (and human history)."
>
> You were originally claiming that animals value freedom above all.
They do. Not always they act accordingly, and not always humans act
accordingly as stated in my previous post.
> The point that not every animal does what you're describing (becoming
> a lonely wolf) proves you wrong.
As I said hierarchy is not bad, as software is not bad. They are useful.
Hierarchy can become bad if it turns to dictatorship and software can
become bad if applied a nonfree license.
There are many packs, groups, tribes, communities and societies of
animals/humans which are hierarchical and respect individual freedom.
> But you somehow seem to believe that it's not a lack of freedom if you
> can escape the situation somehow, even if putting yourself under
> great risk (like an animal trying to fight against the leader or
> maybe dying without the group).
I never stated that. Freedom is worth fighting for, because it's above
all, and that's the idea. When you feel oppressed, you need to take
action and free yourself. Fail to do that and you live miserably.
> With this definition, almost everyone is perfectly free, even most
> slaves,
The farmer with its slaves (which are not payed and don't have money nor
ID's to break from slavery) is a dictatorship kind of hierarchy. And
that is bad. Just like a developer with its proprietary software users.
> and proprietary software is not a problem (you escape the
> situation any time by replacing it with free software or not using a
> computer).
It is a problem and you should act by replacing the proprietary software
with free software.
> Like I said, also people under control of a tyrannic regime can
> "choose to overthrow the leadership". This posibility doesn't make
> them more free.
> You used the same argument for marriage, but it leads you to serious
> contradictions.
You make assumptions to invalidate my statements and reach
contradictions which are not mine, but your own.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
I got it now.
Your definition of freedom is so slippery that you just call the lack of freedom sometimes slavery, sometimes "hierarchy" or "being a team", just which of the names suits you best in order to rationalize your behaviour.
You never provided any real arguments about the differences of the three.
I think every reader recognizes this and if you don't provide a few concrete definitions and point out in a clear way why the animal in a tribe has freedom because he "can try to overthrow the leadership" but people in tyrannic countries have not, then your lack of arguments is obvious for everyone and my work is done.
I am a member!
În 2014-01-04 16:27, name at domain a scris:
> Your definition of freedom is so slippery that you just call the lack
> of freedom sometimes slavery, sometimes "hierarchy" or "being a
> team", just which of the names suits you best in order to rationalize
> your behaviour.
I know it's hard to follow arguments when your own agenda is against the
conclusion.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
If you had any real arguments I would gladly accept them.
There were many situations when people in this forum convinced me with their ideas. So this can't be the reason.
True, I convinced you once :P
So, yeah, the problem is not on your side.
And quantumgravity, what have I told you about feeding trolls? No more cookies for tct under the table, okay? ;D
I didn't pay attention for a second and then it happend... You better watch out or you'll share my fate and find yourself in the middle of a huge discussion with some troll in no time!
I am a member!
În 2014-01-05 01:46, name at domain a scris:
> some troll in no time!
If supporting the free software philosophy of the GNU project (in this
case that freedom is the highest value) is trolling in a free software
community such as the Trisquel users community, then something must be
wrong. The Trisquel project, the Trisquel community or some members. I
will contact Ruben for clarification.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
>Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them.
Of course. But nobody can promote illogical principles by means of logics. You must appeal to emotions. Maybe I missing something, but I can't see this approach in FSF advocacy. It's like to use a spoon instead of a hammer. It's ineffective.
>Every animal strives for freedom
REALLY?? O_O How about the whole story of domestication of dogs? If every animal strives for freedom, then domestication is impossible.
And by the way, how about ants?
>If you believe otherwise ..
I believe otherwise and I don't want to do it. Why? Because I can't see any benefits in these specific situations. Your argument looks like "If you don't belive "computers are the higest value in my life" then throw away your computer right now!".
> free software movement is illogical just like a religion
You got it wrong. Every movement have motivation. But every motivation needs under-logical basis. For example, there isn't any way to prove need to stay alive by means of pure logic.
But, if you want to change mind of a person, you must use the same basic illogical beliefs.
Example:
Person A: "You should care about ecology, otherwise your children would live in terrible world of devastation"
Person B: "Hurhurhur! I'm a childfree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree), go away!"
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 12:56, name at domain a scris:
>> Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them.
>
> Of course. But nobody can promote illogical principles by means of
> logics. You must appeal to emotions. Maybe I missing something, but I
> can't see this approach in FSF advocacy. It's like to use a spoon
> instead of a hammer. It's ineffective.
Most of the free software programs (being licensed under GNU *GPL), a
lot of free software programs which are donated to the GNU project, and
Trisquel and other free system distributions are the results of FSF's
activism. Ethics are ethics, campaigning them can be effective or
ineffective. And considering the amount of software developers who use
GNU licenses, donate software to GNU and develop FSF-endorsed systems,
their campaigning seems effective to me.
>> Every animal strives for freedom
>
> REALLY?? O_O How about the whole story of domestication of dogs? If
> every animal strives for freedom, then domestication is impossible.
Every dogs loves freedom. Put one in a leash and then unleash him. You
will see the difference in his attitude.
> And by the way, how about ants?
Collaboration, specialization and hierarchy are features of every
community/society, even the free software community and the human
society. Don't confuse these with slavery.
>> If you believe otherwise ..
>
> I believe otherwise and I don't want to do it. Why? Because I can't
> see any benefits in these specific situations.
You can find benefits in each of the three described situations: lack of
responsibility being in prison (you can use the lack of mobility in your
advantage, avoiding a lot of responsibilities), convenience for using
proprietary software which do the job, and lack of responsibility and
stability being a slave to other human being. Freedom is above all,
nevertheless people choose immediate benefits over long-term freedom.
It's because they are reckless and act before they think, not because
freedom is not a cause worth to fight for and reject benefits when you
are denied your freedom.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
>their campaigning seems effective to me.
I don't want shatter your sweet dreams, but can you tell me percentage of computer users who use Trisquel?
> Put one in a leash and then unleash him.
>You will see the difference in his attitude.
You dodged the answer. Maybe I need to repeat my question. If every animal want to be free, then how is it possible to domesticate them?
>Don't confuse these with slavery.
Slavery is a subset of hierarchy. I can prove it. Let's pretend that slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy. Anarchistic society haven't got any hierarchy. Thus, citizens of anarchistic country can have slaves. But, it's absurd. Thus, because we have only two mutually exclusive options "Slavery is a subset of hierarchy" and "Slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy", then the option "Slavery is a subset of hierarchy" is true.
>You can find benefits in each of the three described situations
Maybe I wasn't clear. Surely, it's possible to find out positive sides in every situation. But every situation is sum of minuses and pluses. Thus, if I said "I can't see benefits", then you must translate it as "the sum is a negative number or zero".
>Freedom is above all
How about "free corpse or alive slave" choice? You know, like "300 spartans".
>It's because they are reckless and act before they think
Then why Bill Gates don't use Trisquel? I don't think he is a reckless idiot.
Freedom isn't natural at all. Most sentient life (putting aside non-sentient organisms that can't make decisions at all) is too busy surviving to think about freedom; freedom is a luxury to life in general, a result of having much more than you need to survive.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for freedom, though. Saying that not being free is OK because it's natural would be naturalistic fallacy. We should strive for freedom because freedom makes our lives and our civilization better and more sustainable overall. Sure, sacrificing freedom can give you temporary comfort, but if we keep giving up freedom, our society will devolve into a totalitarian society like North Korea, or a primitive despotism like what the ancient world had, depending on whether technology is preserved. Neither of these are favorable to a free society, and history shows that neither of these are sustainable in the long run.
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 18:54, name at domain a scris:
> Freedom isn't natural at all. Most sentient life (putting aside
> non-sentient organisms that can't make decisions at all) is too busy
> surviving to think about freedom; freedom is a luxury to life in
> general, a result of having much more than you need to survive.
You can argue that culture is not naturally above all, above survival.
And I am not saying it's true or false.
But freedom is naturally above all. Afro-american slaves were used as
animals to do hard works, were not given enough food, were beaten, were
sexually abused and were killed. This doesn't mean they didn't strive
for freedom. Some rebelled, and few become free and gave speeches for
freedom and slavery abolition. Most of them talked with fellow slaves
about these issues and sang beautiful songs about freedom. A slave is
always thinking about his freedom.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
I am a member!
În 2014-01-03 18:26, name at domain a scris:
>> their campaigning seems effective to me.
>
> I don't want shatter your sweet dreams, but can you tell me percentage
> of computer users who use Trisquel?
I haven't made any statement regarding the users of GNU GPL-licensed
software, GNU software or Trisquel distribution. The fact that there are
so many developers who do one of the three things I mentioned: license
their software under GPL, donate software to GNU and develop free
distributions like Trisquel seems to me FSF's campaigning work is
effective.
>> Put one in a leash and then unleash him.
>> You will see the difference in his attitude.
>
> You dodged the answer. Maybe I need to repeat my question. If every
> animal want to be free, then how is it possible to domesticate them?
By tricking them, giving them immediate benefits and then enslaving
them. That's the way of proprietary software developers too. They trick
the users to give their freedom for convenience.
>> Don't confuse these with slavery.
>
> Slavery is a subset of hierarchy. I can prove it.
So what. Proprietary software is a subset of software. It would be wrong
to reject software because most of software is proprietary. There is
free software as well. So if slavery is a subset of hierarchy, that
doesn't make hierarchy a bad thing. There are democracies (which are
hierarchies) and those forbid slavery.
Anyway, "confusion" means you say hierarchy = slavery, not hierarchy >
slavery.
> Let's pretend that
> slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy. Anarchistic society haven't got
> any hierarchy. Thus, citizens of anarchistic country can have slaves.
> But, it's absurd. Thus, because we have only two mutually exclusive
> options "Slavery is a subset of hierarchy" and "Slavery isn't a
> subset of hierarchy", then the option "Slavery is a subset of
> hierarchy" is true.
Your logic is faulty because you fail to see that anarchy is the system
in which there is no single big hierarchical tree with a central root
(leadership), but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of smaller
hierarchical trees instead. So instead of having a hierarchical
community or society, you have an anarchical community or society of
smaller independent subgroups, of which some, if not all, are
hierarchical. In some of those subgroups you will find slaves. Actually,
anarchy drives disorder, violation of individual freedoms and slavery.
Thus slavery can happen in hierarchy but in anarchy it will certainly
happen.
However, this forum of a free system is not the place for a
hierarchy/anarchy debate.
>> You can find benefits in each of the three described situations
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear. Surely, it's possible to find out positive sides
> in every situation. But every situation is sum of minuses and pluses.
> Thus, if I said "I can't see benefits", then you must translate it as
> "the sum is a negative number or zero".
At some point you can think some rather trivial benefits can weight a
lot, more than your freedom. That doesn't mean your are rationale and
you're make a good long-term decision when you value benefits over
freedom. Sometimes you don't even think of the minuses. You are reckless
and just go with it without giving it a time to think and analyse.
>> It's because they are reckless and act before they think
>
> Then why Bill Gates don't use Trisquel? I don't think he is a reckless
> idiot.
He is a perverse person who wants freedom just for himself and not for
all users. I am pretty sure that if he uses Windows, it's not the
version a regular user can get. And I am sure he can modify the system
he uses, because Microsoft grants him with the source code. And I am
sure he doesn't have any Microsoft backdoor in his
system.
But this is not the only person who strives for the power to control
others and have freedom just for himself.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
>The fact that there are so many developers who do one of the three things I mentioned
-----------------------
>most of software is proprietary
Congratulations! Now you finally understand why propaganda of FSF is ineffective.
>By tricking them, giving them immediate benefits and then enslaving them.
So-called "tricking" isn't only part of domestication. Other part is selection. Obedient animals have better survival rate than too freedom-loving (i.e. wild) animals. The same goes for beehives, wolf packs, flocks of sheep and colonies of phytoplankton. And of course, humans aren't exception. It's why Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment were successful. Humans are domestic animals. We domesticated by ourselves.
For thousand years human societies had strict hierarchy. Thereafter, era of capitalism began and hierarchy became more flexible.
But no-one can just throw away thousand years. It's why Third Reich and the USSR were created. And maybe it's why I have orgasm-like feeling when I imagine myself as small cogwheel in cruel and heartless the military machine of Third Reich(or USSR sometimes). Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtht2QeeZYo
>Slavery is a subset of hierarchy, that doesn't make hierarchy a bad thing.
I'm not an anarchist or even a democrat, so hierarchy is OK for me. I just wanted to point out your strange definition of hierarchy. Slavery is the most extreme case of hierarchy. Slavery reduces so-called "freedom" of a slave very much. Other hierarchies also reduce freedom of individual. Of course, sometimes you can leave your hierarchy. But if you need/want to stay, then you must sacrifice your freedom. For example, if you want to use a forum/chat, then you must follow the rules of one. Otherwise, you will be banned.
>no single big hierarchical tree with a central root (leadership), but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of smaller hierarchical trees instead.
My logic is flawless, I just have other definition of anarchy. If so-called "anarchistic society" has any hierarchical trees, then it's not anarchy in my opinion. If there isn't any hierarchical trees, then any form of exploitation of man by man (e.g. slavery) is impossible.
>you aren't make a good long-term decision when you value benefits over freedom
So-called "freedom" isn't thing-in-itself. Nobody can fight for pure abstract freedom. In fact, people fight for their needs and desires. Freedom is a important instrument, but it isn't end in itself. Freedom is like money. If you don't spend/sacrifice it from time to time, then it's worthless trash.
For example, Joe is a slave. The Master told him: "Joe, you must learn classical music!". And Joe wants the same thing! He hasn't freedom of choice, but is OK, because Joe's desire and master's desire coincide. He is a slave, but he is happy.
Other example: Noah is a inveterate bachelor. He wants to have a sweetheart, but he doesn't want to sacrifice his freedom.
Thus, he doomed to suffer from loneliness for rest of his life
>He is a perverse person who wants freedom just for himself
Okay, maybe Bill is bad example. But how about other money bags? If freedom is so important, then why it's not always good for business plan of company? If you're right, then freedom-loving companies must have huge competitive advantage. Of course, it can be selfish love, like "I want freedom only for myself, but not for others".
And by the way, you dodged "slavery or death!" question. What would you prefer and why?
>freedom is the highest value
User "Magic Banana" thinks "Freedom does not have to be "the highest value" for a user to only accept free software."(Prooflink: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ethic-really-good-argument-floss?page=1#comment-48028). How can you comment on that?
I am a member!
I will respond just to these two because they are essential in this
debate and I am tired of arguing with you, quantumgravity and gnuser.
În 2014-01-05 11:32, name at domain a scris:
> My logic is flawless, I just have other definition of anarchy. If
> so-called "anarchistic society" has any hierarchical trees, then it's
> not anarchy in my opinion.
> Nobody can fight for pure
> abstract freedom. In fact, people fight for their needs and desires.
Just like with "free software", you have your own definitions of
"freedom" and "anarchy". I don't. I use mainstream definitions which are
the result of long (years, tens of years, centuries or even millennia
of) complex analytical processes and make human communication easy.
These mainstream definitions are the Free Software Definition of the GNU
project (which Trisquel project uses according to its guidelines), and
"freedom" and "anarchy" meanings from dictionary, Wiktionary, and
Wikipedia.
As I already stated, it's not freedom if you are free to hurt others.
That is power over others. Freedom is about balance in community, equal
rights in society. In Romanian there is a saying, "your freedom ends
when my freedom begins" („libertatea ta se termină acolo unde începe
libertatea mea”).
Also, "anarchy" doesn't mean lack of hierarchies, just lack of central
hierarchy spanning over all community. An "anarchy" without smaller
hierarchical groups cannot exist because a group needs to organize
itself, meaning some members of the group have to take leadership, and
tell others what to do in order to survive/prevail in their mission.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
I am a member!
În 2014-01-05 12:19, Tiberiu C. Turbureanu a scris:
> In Romanian there is a saying, "your freedom
> ends when my freedom begins"
s/when/where
> („libertatea ta se termină acolo unde
> începe libertatea mea”).
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
>I will respond just to these two because they are essential in this
>debate and I am tired of arguing with you
But you MUST! For the sake of Justice and Freedom! You're chosen one, last hope of FSF, because only you able to stop malicious alliance of roboq6, quantumgravity and gnuser!
El 05/01/14 05:42, name at domain escribió:
>
> >I will respond just to these two because they are essential in this
> >debate and I am tired of arguing with you
>
> But you MUST! For the sake of Justice and Freedom! You're chosen one,
> last hope of FSF, because only you able to stop malicious alliance of
> roboq6, quantumgravity and gnuser!
What?
>Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them.
Of course. But nobody can promote illogical principles by means of logics. You must appeal to emotions or other illogical principles. Maybe I missing something, but I can't see this approach in FSF advocacy. It's like to use a spoon instead of a hammer. It's ineffective.
>Every animal strives for freedom
REALLY?? O_O How about the whole story of domestication of dogs? If every animal strives for freedom, then domestication is impossible.
And by the way, how about ants?
>If you believe otherwise ..
I believe otherwise and I don't want to do it. Why? Because I can't see any benefits in these specific situations. Your argument looks like "If you don't belive "computers are the higest value in my life" then throw away your computer right now!".
> free software movement is illogical just like a religion
You got it wrong. Every movement have motivation. But every motivation needs under-logical basis. For example, there isn't any way to prove need to stay alive by means of pure logic.
But, if you want to change mind of a person, you must use the same basic illogical beliefs.
Example:
Person A: "You should care about ecology, otherwise your children would live in terrible world of devastation"
Person B: "Hurhurhur! I'm a childfree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree), go away!"
On 18/12/13 19:20, aaz893 wrote:
> Why non-FLOSS is unethical?
Because proprietary software stops a user from having control over their
computer.
Many forms of proprietary software save file/s on the computer, which
can only be used by proprietary software. If a user sends a file created
by a proprietary program to another user, that other user then has the
choice of getting a copy of the proprietary software and accepting the
EULA, or not using the file.
In a lot of cases, proprietary software has a cascading effect and most
people end up signing the EULA. All of those users rely on the software
developer, who can change the EULA whenever he/she wants to. I highly
recommend watching the film "Terms And Conditions May Apply" for reasons
as to why this is dangerous for society: http://tacma.net/.
As RMS says, proprietary software is anti-social. All of the users
become helpless, and their acceptance of proprietary software cascades
and makes more users helpless.
So to answer your question, I think proprietary software is unethical
because it is anti-social.
Andrew.
>Because proprietary software stops a user from having control over their computer.
How about this case:
"There is not such thing as freedom. All humans are slaves of the God."
On 19/12/13 23:13, aaz893 wrote:
>> Because proprietary software stops a user from having control over
>> their computer.
>
>
> How about this case:
>
> "There is not such thing as freedom. All humans are slaves of the
> God."
Software developers aren't gods, so no need to be a slave. :-)
Andrew.
man,never heard such crap before.
"Freedom" is not necessarily the ability to do anything; it is the ability to do what is right. People should not need to be ruled by a sinful man, and all humans are sinful. That is why I use libre software.
How can you live with atheism, the idea that there is no reason why we are alive?
God is just and good, thus I do not mind the idea of being a slave of God.
If there is no God, there is no reason to live.
DonaldET3 said:
> How can you live with atheism, the idea that there is no reason why we are alive?
That's not atheism. That's nihilism. Don't confuse the two.
All being an atheist means is that you don't believe in any god or gods. More colloquially, that you don't believe in any religion. Most atheists I have seen (including myself) are not nihilists, and don't think that there's no reason to live or whatever.
I know it's hard to imagine, but if you ever find that the evidence for whatever god you believe in is unconvincing after all, you'll see that it really doesn't matter. You just get on with your life. (One exception: if you get forced out of a religious community you're attached to because of this, I've heard that the result is devastating. But this is because of loss of a community, not the loss of a belief in a god.)
>"Freedom" is not necessarily the ability to do anything
You're missing the point. You can't behave freely AT ALL. You're a
marionette in hands of the God/laws of Physics(atheistic variant of fatalism). Freedom is an illusion.
Christians believe that man has a free will, not that people are puppets in the hands of God.
I can be wrong, but I heard that quakers(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers) are fatalists.
Quakers are a strict sect of Christians. Most Christians are not Quakers. What is "fatalism"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism incorrect belief that we have no input in our lives, "fate" determines everything
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios