Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PHP5 JSON Still In A Licensing Mess

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Mentally ill people, psychopaths, rapists and the like do not have the freedom to hurt other people. That's not a freedom. Rape, murder, mugging, etc are not freedoms. You are not free to do those things. If you live in a country where laws don't protect you from those things then you are not free.
    *facepalm*

    YES, that's the entire POINT. We LIMIT the freedom of murderers, rapists etc. to do murder, rape etc. IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM to other people. I've been telling this to you since 16 pages ago or something.

    The same way the GPL limits the freedom of people who would take advantage of the codebase, IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM to the user. It's the exactly same thing.

    A freedom doesn't stop being a freedom because we don't grant that freedom. It's still a freedom, it's just a freedom people don't have. If people stop having freedom of speech, if we tomorrow get a law that removes the freedom of speech, that doesn't make freedom of speech itself any less a freedom, now does it? It will just be a freedom that we currently don't have.

    Once more, with feeling: A cheeseburger doesn't stop being a cheeseburger just because you're starving.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      *facepalm*

      YES, that's the entire POINT. We LIMIT the freedom of murderers, rapists etc. to do murder, rape etc. IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM to other people. I've been telling this to you since 16 pages ago or something.

      The same way the GPL limits the freedom of people who would take advantage of the codebase, IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM to the user. It's the exactly same thing.

      A freedom doesn't stop being a freedom because we don't grant that freedom. It's still a freedom, it's just a freedom people don't have. If people stop having freedom of speech, if we tomorrow get a law that removes the freedom of speech, that doesn't make freedom of speech itself any less a freedom, now does it? It will just be a freedom that we currently don't have.

      Once more, with feeling: A cheeseburger doesn't stop being a cheeseburger just because you're starving.
      you can't limit something that never existed in the first place. Murder is not a freedom, even if it was legal. The people that have to live where murderers exist legally are not free.
      Last edited by duby229; 08-24-2013, 06:49 PM.

      Comment


      • #83
        The definition of freedom and free.

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free

        It's not one or the other, it's all of them. If you'd like me to clarify I will.

        Freedom is definitely not about limitation. It's about exemption from limitation. A murderer existing legally in a place puts limitations to the people living in that place. You can't be free to murder, but you can be free from being murdered. You can't limit a murderers freedom to murder, because murder isnt a freedom, but you can limit a murderers availability to murder by locking him up and removing his freedom to go where he wants.
        Last edited by duby229; 08-24-2013, 07:19 PM.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          Absolutely it does. In the US, I have legal rights that allow me to defend myself in the court of law. There are multiple courses of action that can be taken depending on how your racism effects me.

          Laws do in fact exist to protect people from racism. Protection from racism is covered by legislation and case law. That's part of the freedom that we americans have.
          No.
          In fact, you're wrong on many levels.
          Hate speech is protected by freedom of speech in USA, here's some court cases that set the precedent
          Terminiello v. Chicago
          Brandenburg v. Ohio
          National Socialist Party v. Skokie
          R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
          Virginia v. Black
          Snyder v. Phelps

          My rights do NOT end where your feelings begin.
          Last edited by peppercats; 08-24-2013, 08:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #85
            Like I said, the courses of action that can be taken depends on what your form of racism was. Whether it was criminal or not. If it wasnt civil cases can still be filed. There is a ton of law in regards to racism on defamation.

            Just remember that free speech does not include "fighting words" like threats of violence. Then your racism is criminal and can be prosecuted in criminal court.
            Last edited by duby229; 08-24-2013, 10:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by VinzC View Post
              Nice catch. But you've just missed the point that individual freedom stops where others' start.
              No, i got that. It's the exact same argument someone like Stallman would make about the GPL.

              Whether or not you agree with it depends a lot on whether or not you think people should have the individual freedom to look at and modify code.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                No, i got that. It's the exact same argument someone like Stallman would make about the GPL.

                Whether or not you agree with it depends a lot on whether or not you think people should have the individual freedom to look at and modify code.
                But that's not a freedom, it's a privilege. It's like the right to drive is not a freedom. When I drive there is a real chance that I could get into an accident and kill someone. Instead driving is a privilege that comes only after responsibilities are met. First you need to get a drivers license and then car insurance before the privilege to drive will be granted.

                The right to use and modify GPL code is similar. It has responsibilities that need to be met before the privilege to use and modify code can be granted. It's not a freedom because a freedom is exemption from limitation.
                Last edited by duby229; 08-24-2013, 10:35 PM.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  But that's not a freedom, it's a privilege.
                  That's your opinion, which you are free to have. A lot of people used to have the opinion that slavery was fine, because being a free man was a privilege, not a right. That was their opinion. Your opinion of their opinion, is just that - another opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    That's your opinion, which you are free to have. A lot of people used to have the opinion that slavery was fine, because being a free man was a privilege, not a right. That was their opinion. Your opinion of their opinion, is just that - another opinion.
                    Fair enough, I can live with that. That's the first thing I said on the topic. Except that people who had that opinion about slavery were wrong, same as people who have the opinion that GPL code is free are wrong.

                    The definition of freedom is clear and I didnt define it. Examples include, free of charge = exemption from cost, freedom of speech = exemption from not being able to speak your mind, a free man = exemption from being owned by someone, etc, etc. In any case freedom is the exemption from limitation, the GPL doesnt fit the definition.
                    Last edited by duby229; 08-24-2013, 11:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      you can't limit something that never existed in the first place. Murder is not a freedom, even if it was legal. The people that have to live where murderers exist legally are not free.
                      Are you trying to be obtuse on purpose?

                      Come on, this isn't rocket science. We can't all have the freedom to do what we want, because some might want to make others not have the freedom to do what they want. Freedoms conflict with each other.

                      And what do you mean "never existed in the first place"? Go back enough time and anything was free - back in caveman times, you were TOTALLY free to murder anyone you wanted - no laws, no courts, no one would blame or accuse you of anything. Later on, we got tribal justice and stuff like that. Eye for an eye, and we kind of made it up as we went along from there.

                      Once again, can you please, please try to get this through your thick skull - a "freedom" does NOT imply that you're only free to do nice things. It's morally ambiguous! You can have freedom from something, but you can also have freedom to do something, and it doesn't matter what that "something" is - any action imaginable fits there, because "freedom" doesn't contain any moral code or even any ethical code in it, it's just freedom, for good or bad.

                      Which is why "freedom" without qualifications is practically meaningless, other than as a rhetoric device, seeing as it doesn't really mean anything without qualifying what you're free to/from.

                      The definition of freedom is clear
                      No, it's not - not as an unqualified word. Freedom by itself is meaningless.

                      Examples include, free of charge = exemption from cost, freedom of speech = exemption from not being able to speak your mind, a free man = exemption from being owned by someone, etc, etc. In any case freedom is the exemption from limitation
                      "Free of charge" is entirely unrelated, it's a different concept (gratis, not libre).
                      "Freedom of speech" - limited in many very real ways. You're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You're not allowed to threaten people.
                      "Free man" - limited in many ways. You're never free to do what you want, you have to follow rules and laws or you get that freedom taken away.

                      All of the freedoms you mentioned are limited in some way, in order to provide maximum benefit to everyone, and to lower the incentive to abuse those freedoms. The exact same way the freedoms provided by GPL are limited by certain rules you have to abide by, in order to make sure no one abuses the freedom.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X