[Fsfe-ie] Re: ethical interpretations of FS
adelaney at cs.may.ie
Tue Feb 3 15:31:43 CET 2004
> My answer to this question is that source code should only be part of
> the commons when it is in control of OTHER PEOPLE'S computers. If it
> is just running on my hardware I have no obligation to disclose what
> it is doing.
I accept your point and ask what about services? If my non-Free
software controls your services (Banking etc...) how is this different
from me controlling your computer, considering computers are just tools
to use services.
In case I'm not being as clear as I can be, let me restate:
You state (rightly) that there is no difference between data. Examples
of data being my private gpg key, Acmesoft source code or a text file
containing a Yeats poem.
At the point where the Acmesoft source code starts controlling my
computer, Free Software philosophy states that the user should be
entitled to view the source code.
I'm extrapolating a little and stating that when your source code (in
compiled form etc...) starts controlling my services, that I would like
to see the source code (I'm not sure of the FSF line on this).
It's clear (to me, and I have been wrong before) that your source code
(again, compiled, interpreted...) running on your machine is your
private data, like your egold password or my gpg key. When your source
code is running and controlling my services I don't think it is your
However, How and why I would still consider your egold password
embedded in the source as still being your private data I'm not sure!
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/attachments/20040203/973ddb4e/attachment.pgp
More information about the FSFE-IE