Underfunding or why I am not interested

[anatoly techtonik]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just mean freedom in general.

There is no freedom in general.

Freedom of ones is a restriction for others. People use the generic terms to
hide specific and sensitive topics, views and beliefs. They are free to do so
unless there is a conflict. If people are interested to resolve this conflict,
they should switch to more specific definitions, language and topic.

I chose terminology from the black Fear deck. When people say they
protecting something, they protect it from somethingelse. This
somethingelse is what people are afraid of - it is their "fear". Probably there
is a different word for that in other deck, but I said "fear", because among
my cards it is the best one that describes an unspoken or hidden reason to
choose between alternatives.

In order to move forward in this discussion I propose to list all the specific
relevant permissions and restrictions explicitly and define several types of
freedom.

For example GNUFreedom:
- allow everything
- deny usage of private branches publicly
(later rule overrides earlier one)

I also would like to distinguish between requirements and effects.
GNUFreedom places requirements, but it is not describes the effects.
When you say "freedom" I read it also as an effect. Let's keep those clean
and use more descriptive and lengthy definitions of wanted and undesired
effects. We need to estimate the role of these effect on our mutual goal -
make an excellent open source software for accounting.

> Someone who says, "AGPL restricts people's
> freedom to choose their license terms for derivates" is correct objectively.
>
> Some people think that is an acceptable restriction because the AGPL is
> adequately free otherwise, and that the particular freedom of derivative
> license choice isn't important. Nobody thinks it isn't a freedom at all.

Right. But we object of this discussion is not a "generic freedom". It is
those peculiar differences between two camps. That's why it is important
to choose a better terminology/

> Now, if you think the AGPL restrictions (they are restrictions) are
> unacceptable, then you must take the position that proprietary restrictions
> are also unacceptable — if you both (A) want to argue from a principled
> freedom-focused reasoning and (B) don't want to be a total hypocrite.

"(A) want to argue from a principled freedom-focused reasoning" - I must
admit that this phrase is beyond the comprehension limits of my English
skills. If you don't want to leave me in confusion, some efforts should be
made to set some terminology.

In other words - I don't understand your assumptions about what position
should I take (and why) to think that AGPL restrictions are unacceptable.

> There are still a couple ways to argue against AGPL restrictions while
> accepting proprietary restrictions and not be hypocritical:
>
> One is pragmatic: you argue that proprietary may be bad for freedom, but not
> fighting against it is simply a better tactic for success of the Free
> Software.
>
> The other position is you don't mind proprietary at all, don't care that it
> is non-free, and the reason you oppose AGPL are not about freedom because
> you don't think freedom is the goal.
>
> So we're both talking about freedom here, and we agree what it is.

No. I don't get the feeling that I agree with you, and to explain where
do I think we disagree I need you to accept that there is a specific
meaning of freedom as put by GNU project values.

I am trying to tell you that I see your understanding of freedom in what is
best described as "desired effects of GNUFreedom", without specifically
stating these effects. GNUFreedom says that "software freedom is only
possible with Free Software". This is where I disagree.

> Proprietary software restricts freedoms. AGPL restricts a very particular
> freedom. Advocates who support AGPL and who do so from a freedom-focused
> position believe that the restriction is net good for freedom overall. You
> don't have to agree. We are still talking about the same thing with the same
> words. We don't need to redefine anything.

It can be simple misunderstanding, but I've got a feeling that your position is
weak, and you don't want to accept it. Why? Because you say "We don't need
to redefine anything.". But I proposed to define _more specific terms_ and not
redefine existing.

> We are still talking about the same thing with the same words.

No. I am not talking about freedom at all. I try to agree upon this terminology
while you say we already agreed. This is a point of conflict past which no
understanding and constructive discussion is possible.