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.
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.
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.
Or, to be more absurd,
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.
I'm free to try using wget for such a silly purpose, but I might as
well prepare myself for disappointment.
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.
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.
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.
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."
You want to download from gnuradio.org using wget.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 82:32:13 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,276,781 |