• Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist

    From Nomen Nescio@21:1/5 to brandon on Thu Mar 9 19:28:35 2017
    XPost: free.software

    brandon said:

    This is a bunk argument. If, for example, a server is set up to
    deny you access to files because you don't have an account and,
    thus, you cannot download them with wget, the server is not denying
    freedom 0 to you.

    GNU wget is equipped with httppost capability and cookie management,
    so a login wall is non-blocking for wget users. And for that reason,
    there would be no freedom 0 compromise. While in the case at hand,
    GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. *is* blocking wget users.

    Is GNU denying you freedom 0 because we don't let you use wget to
    download files from our private servers without an account? Of
    course not.

    As mentioned above, the false analogy makes this question moot.

    You're still using wget however you want (to download files that,
    for any given reason, are not available to you). You're just not
    getting the results that you want.

    Not delivering results is in fact the means by which GNU Radio
    Foundation, Inc. "stops" wget users, and hence freedom 0 (search for
    the word "stopped").

    Or, to be more absurd,

    Try not being absurd, you're less likely to produce false analogies
    that way.

    the fact that reality won't allow me to use wget to download 10 kg
    of gold doesn't mean that reality is denying me freedom 0 in my
    usage of wget.

    The first problem is that because "reality" is not a person or
    organization, it has no duty to conform to any principle whatsoever.
    It is principles that are based on reality, not the other way around.

    It's also a false analogy, because "stopping" implies that in the
    absence of stopping there is a possiblity. If the possibility doesn't
    exist in the first place, then no one weilds the power to stop it. To
    impose on freedom 0 requires first having the power to do so.

    I'm free to try using wget for such a silly purpose, but I might as
    well prepare myself for disappointment.

    Disappointment can manifest from many different events. It's
    disappointment as a result of freedom 0 obstruction that is at issue.

    Whether gnuradio.org is actively blocking Tor users can be discussed
    (and discussed and discussed, going around in circles apparently),
    but the discussion is completely unrelated to freedom 0.

    That's incorrect. You need to reread freedom 0, paying particular
    attention to the words "or stopped", which inherently includes
    "blocking" among other ways of /stopping/ someone's use of a tool.

    --
    Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nomen Nescio@21:1/5 to brandon on Fri Mar 10 02:16:14 2017
    XPost: free.software

    brandon said:

    This is a bunk argument. If, for example, a server is set up to
    deny you access to files because you don't have an account and,
    thus, you cannot download them with wget, the server is not
    denying freedom 0 to you.

    GNU wget is equipped with httppost capability and cookie
    management, so a login wall is non-blocking for wget users. And
    for that reason, there would be no freedom 0 compromise. While in
    the case at hand, GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. *is* blocking wget
    users.

    Regardless of whether it's due to not having an account, due to your
    proxy being blocked or due to user incompetence, your ability to
    access the data had nothing to do with your freedom to use the
    software.

    Of course it does. It's already been established that "stopping"
    someone using wget in the manner they want suppresses freedom 0. Here
    you're just stating the contrary position without actually countering
    what you've quoted.

    Not delivering results is in fact the means by which GNU Radio
    Foundation, Inc. "stops" wget users, and hence freedom 0 (search
    for the word "stopped").

    Nothing stopped you from running the program. You ran the program,
    you got negative results.

    Freedom 0 is not limited to simply the right to use the program.
    That's only the trivial benefit. Freedom 0 also includes the right to
    use the program *how the user wants to*.

    By the way, you should search for "stopped" and then read the next
    sentence: "It has nothing to do with what functionality the program
    has, or whether it is useful for what you want to do."

    Indeed I read that line. It reasonably limits freedom 0 to exclude
    two sitations that (in the absense of that line) would trigger a
    freedom 0 issue, neither of which I'm making use of. GNU wget was
    already equipped for the job and also fit for purpose *before being
    stopped by the access denial*. Tor-using wget users are not relying
    on the exempted criteria to claim a freedom 0 problem.

    You want to download from gnuradio.org using wget.

    Not just that. I want to download from gnuradio.org using wget to
    proxy over Tor.

    No one stopped you from running the program; it ran just fine.
    Unfortunately, it wasn't functional for your purpose and it wasn't
    useful. Freedom 0 retained.

    You're just repeating yourself here. Your assumption is that if the
    program executes, "freedom 0 is retained". That's very insufficent,
    and defeated above.

    That's incorrect. You need to reread freedom 0, paying particular attention to the words "or stopped", which inherently includes
    "blocking" among other ways of /stopping/ someone's use of a tool.

    Did the gnuradio.org admins put code in wget or your operating
    system to prevent wget from running?

    This is a /begging the question/ fallacy. Your assumption is first
    that preventing execution outright is the sole way to violate freedom
    0. The assumption is disputed, so it cannot logically form the
    premise of a new argument. It makes no difference whether
    gnuradio.org did a code injection on wget or the OS when the disputed assumption is then used to build an argument that's inherently flawed
    by the premise.


    --
    Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nomen Nescio@21:1/5 to Mike Gerwitz on Sat Mar 11 15:37:58 2017
    XPost: free.software

    Mike Gerwitz said:

    In the early days of GNU, you'd request a physical copy via mail.

    That wasn't discriminatory. They didn't say liberals had to go
    through those hoops, while registered republicans could download
    it, for example.

    That's not a proper comparison.

    It's not a comparison. If the whole public is given the same
    mechanism and same access, it's not discrimination. How is this
    unclear?

    If you divide the community, and give different (and unequal)
    treatment to different groups, how is that not discrimination,
    particularly when none of of the groups are wholly malicious?

    If I were flooded with requests from some address beacuse they were
    proxying them from around the world, I might very well request that
    the post office return them to the sender rather than deliver them
    to me.

    Without more detail it cannot be judged whether your hypothetical case
    above is discrimination (which has at least 3 different definitions).
    If I give you the benefit of saying you're not trying to exploit
    equivocation, then the claim above may or may not be similar to the discrimination against Tor users by GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. If you
    were needlessly refusing legitimate mail based on some foolish
    criteria like whether it passed through a particular post office (one
    that is not itself malicious), then your analogy would resemble the
    problem.

    If the mail is proxied by the classic postal junk mailer (pre-Internet
    mailing lists of the 1970s) service, then it really is 100% malicious,
    in which case blocking them is not discrimination by the same
    definition of "discrimination" (which is /to discern/). That variety
    of discrimination does not resemble what GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. is
    doing.

    As you try to tune your hopeless analogy, the closer it gets to
    malicious discrimination with needless collateral damage that impacts
    legit users, the more it resembles what GRFI is doing. The more
    removed it gets from that, the more of a false analogy it becomes.

    You can send me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy. You can mail
    me some writable media with postage and I'll mail it back with a
    copy, and maybe throw in some other GNU software as a bonus.

    Are you willing to repackage the website-hosted documentation that
    is excluded from the git-downloadable package? Would you mind
    doing that periodically, since the web-published content changes?
    If someone wants to edit the gnuradio wiki, can they send you
    update instructions?

    None of that is relevant.

    Of course it is. Quite simply, if you're not going to solve the
    problem, your offer is empty and the problem remains.

    Your freedoms apply only to the software you receive. It provides
    no guarantee that you'll ever get an up to date version of the
    software.

    You're talking about the rights inherent in gnuradio as a free
    software package. That's actually irrelevant to the claim of GNU
    Radio Foundation, Inc. violating the freedom 0 principle, exclusively.
    No one has said "the gnuradio software is non-free", yet this is what
    you're addressing.

    More precisely, you've just used a fallacy of composition. That is,
    freedom 0 is a criteria for determining whether an application gets
    the "free software" badge of approval. You're trying to reverse that,
    and take criteria outside of the text of freedom 0 (the application
    thereof) and inject it into freedom 0 (so as to limit it). That is a
    fallacy of composition.

    It's also immediately evident that you're not understanding the
    problem I've described when you start with "Your freedoms apply..."
    The word /apply/ signals that you think the discussion is over
    freedoms that are guaranteed in some way (e.g. by a license).

    When a company goes against a philosophical principle, it's not
    necessarily legally actionable. It can be simply nothing more than a
    failure to embrace a philosophical principle. And this is the case
    here. The freedom 0 *principle* that GNU Radio Foundation,
    Inc. undermines is *not* license non-compliance. (if it were, I would
    have titled it as such).

    Whether you realize it or not, your comments attempt to support a
    precedent that will make it easy for more GNU projects to become
    exclusive clubs in walled-gardens, while at the same time
    accepting charitable contributions of code and money from the
    public relies on them.

    I explicitly stated otherwise.

    If you mean your statement claiming to have a reverse bias, that was
    fallacious and without impact. Your arguments have the opposite
    effect.

    RMS has clarified *his stance*. It's important to realize that he is
    not defending user freedom, but rather the GNU project that has become freedom-hostile, for which FSF is responsible.

    This thread has been quoting the free software definition---the four freedoms---that he himself wrote. "His stance" _is_ the definition.

    That's nonsense. Freedom 0 was written decades ago. His statements
    today are his stance today, inspired by the sudden motivation to
    defend GRFI. Your appeal to authority fallacy has been called out.

    Clarity on the status quo is only useful to the extent that we
    realize what must change to restore and retain the public trust
    amid new threats that control people who (quite rightly) don't
    want to be controlled. What is clear is that we've not yet
    reached that level of clarity on the problem as a whole.

    Yes, but let's not misattribute.

    You can obviously scroll up to see who is talking about the legally
    binding aspect of freedom 0 to see where clarity is missing. It's not
    legal application or obligations that's at issue with freedom 0, and
    you've muddied the waters by bringing it up.

    If the disagreement is the use of CloudFlare, talk about CloudFlare.
    It isn't a software freedom issue.

    CloudFlare is the instrument by which software freedom 0 and a long
    list of civil liberties are being denied. It's also the instrument by which security is compromised.

    I don't feel at this point that anyone here is going to convince you
    that Freedom 0 cannot possibly be violated in this circumstance.

    This is because you've limited yourself strictly to the legal
    application of freedom 0, and skipped the high-level philosophical
    principle. This viewpoint neglects to see the forest for the trees.

    --
    Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives:
    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/security-discuss/2017-03
    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2017-03
    will be monitored.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)