() Stefan Monnier () Sun, 27 May 2018 13:19:41 -0400 > > If you add "freedom to do X" you inevitably remove the > > "freedom from having others do X". > X is Free Software. > i write some, share it widely. > this stops your X how? Of course, like all tradeoffs, some are trivial because the downside is negligible. Still, which part of what I wrote do you dispute? I'm not disputing anything (at least, i don't think so), besides the assertion that i'm disputing anything. :-D My writing that is me scratching my chin, trying a value in a variable position to see how the expression evaluates. I suppose i was trying to find X that does / does not fulfill the zero-sum vibe of what you wrote, expressing my thoughts in a concise, stylized way. Still, if a dispute aimed at a particular part must be conjured, i suppose the word "inevitably" would be the obvious candidate. My understanding of "freedom from having others do X" hinges on "having others do X" to mean "delegation of X to others". So, when X is "writing/sharing free software", we get: If you add "freedom to w/s free software" you inevitably remove the "freedom from delegating w/s of free software to others". This, to my ear, doesn't hold fully. I can imagine myself a hacker honcho w/ flunkies who i assign to do exactly what i am trying to do (write/share free software), perhaps even the same algorithm, for purposes of downstream analysis, deconstruction and re-synthesis to form the "best" implementation. There is no no inevitability of removal in this scenario (that i can see). Anyway, these are new thoughts, so thanks for provoking them! (My original ponderings were not so profound.) This dispute is a quite a stretch, anyway (i'm out of practice) -- what am i missing? -- Thien-Thi Nguyen ----------------------------------------------- (defun responsep (query) ; (2018) Software Libero (pcase (context query) ; = Dissenso Etico (`(technical ,ml) (correctp ml)) ...)) 748E A0E8 1CB8 A748 9BFA --------------------------------------- 6CE4 6703 2224 4C80 7502