How close does the Pyra's design come to respecting your freedom?

[_jr_]

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the benefits of free software, but most of those benefits are only benefits to a select subset of users, or in specific situations. To anyone else there is little reason to care about "software freedom" as the FSF defines it, as long as they have the freedom to use whatever software works best for them.


-Neelix

No, they have lots of reason to care about software freedom, they just don't realize, because they already have so much software freedom that they (and you AFAICT) cannot appreciate the effort that was required and in a sgnificant part was (and - despite commercial interest in various high profile projects - still is) done by volunteers. 30 years ago you simply had no access to e.g. a decent compiler unless you had the several thousand dollars needed to pay for a license. This slowly changed through lots of tedious work to give everybody today the chance to be creative and productive without a major upfront investment. Access to software is a significant factor especially in developing countries. Caring about software freedom is a Good Thing.


Why should I care to contribute https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90887 unless caring about software freedom were a moral obligation? It is my right to keep the patch for myself or even sell fixed versions to users of the affected software (the mesa license is not copyleft), but all these options would be disrespectful to the developers, especially the volunteer ones, and the users. Taking the moral obligation away makes volunteers look like idiots and users like parasites which is a perfidious thing to do. It's fine not being able to code, it's fine having to feed your family first, it's fine to enjoy your life, but above a certain level (which probably pretty much everybody on this board exceeds) there is a moral obligation to care about other's freedom (including the software releated ones) just as much as there is an obligation to care about poverty, injustice, sustainability, ...


Anybody has the right to choose, but choosing to not care is often just the easy way out. Choosing to attack the ones that do (in moderation; I'm a valid target is ... ... even less good.

 

[Exophase]

Why should I care to contribute https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90887 unless caring about software freedom were a moral obligation? It is my right to keep the patch for myself or even sell fixed versions to users of the affected software (the mesa license is not copyleft), but all these options would be disrespectful to the developers, especially the volunteer ones, and the users. Taking the moral obligation away makes volunteers look like idiots and users like parasites which is a perfidious thing to do. It's fine not being able to code, it's fine having to feed your family first, it's fine to enjoy your life, but above a certain level (which probably pretty much everybody on this board exceeds) there is a moral obligation to care about other's freedom (including the software releated ones) just as much as there is an obligation to care about poverty, injustice, sustainability, ...

So your argument is that volunteers only volunteer if they feel morally obligated to? That otherwise they're idiots? I can't agree with that. People naturally want to give to other people (and doing so is often mutually beneficial and has immediate value including social benefit), but they also naturally want to better their own situations, give to those nearer to them, etc. I really don't think you're in a position to judge whether or not people are beyond this "level" you talk about.

I can choose to do proprietary software, or I can choose to do nothing. The fact that you think the former is unethical and the latter is fine doesn't really compute for me. No, I know the argument that this contributes to people's attitudes about software and whatnot but I can't agree with that. As far as rms is concerned you can do software on your own computer and never give it to anyone and that's fine - apparently from what you're saying that's unethical too. Actually it sounds like you're saying anyone who knows how to code should be spending copious amounts of time on free software, and of course if you don't code you should at least be trying to learn right? But you said it's fine not being able to code so I don't know.

 

[comradekingu]

Since when is morality an obligation? Fix a bug and be happy. You dont have to read code to fix all bugs, but there certainly is more enthusiasm in FOSS projects. I like to thing thats not because people feel obliged to...

If you contribute to something that isnt copyleft in the belief that it is, thats your choice, if you don't understand, the license doesnt care, stop setting yourself up by being naive or misguided is how that works.

Btw exo, the notion of doing something, right or wrong, isnt always not doing it. Depending on how you see things, proprietary vs free being either right or wrong, is a valid stance, both ways.

I bought a button for my cellphone. Called flic. It has an API and yada yada, its ultimately a button. Upon buying it they want me to register an account to use it. NonononononononnoNOnonoonononononNO.

 

[Grench]

Grench literally just said that true freedom would let you do anything with the device, which is exactly what the RYF does and if he's still using that as an argument against it then he clearly doesn't understand it.

Bad arguments are my pet peeve.

It's a good pet peeve to have.  Now kindly step down off of that high high horse and reconsider your very loud finger pointing.

I heard a very good joke that follows both this and your food analogy quite well.  I believe it sourced from a radio show and I am unsure of the author, so please excuse me if I paraphrase and fail to cite this to it's appropriate author.

A man and his wife invite another couple over for supper.  Knowing that the other couple are vegetarians, they prepare vegetarian dishes for their guests with a side of meat for themselves and everyone has a great time.

Returning the gesture, the vegetarian couple invites the other couple over for supper.  The vegetarian couple prepares and entirely vegetarian dinner to feed to their guests.  

The guests ask, "Where's the meat?"  

The vegetarian couple, a bit confused, reply, "You know we're vegetarians - you even fixed us vegetarian fare when you had us over last time."

"Yes, but you also knew that we're not vegetarians.  Where's the meat?" asked the guests.

"Well, um, err...  we don't have any."  Said the vegetarian host.

"I notice you have a cat, do you mind if we eat it?"

The joke dissolves from there.

The point of the above?  YOU Sir, are missing the point.

The FSF certification requires the removal of all non-free software from the device.  We both get that.

The FSF ALSO requires removal of all references to, suggestions for, links to, and promotion of non-free software.  It is this censorship aspect that DIRECTLY inhibits the usage by people who are not concerned about the FSF's mission.

You state that I can use the device just that same WITH the FSF's badge of honor/horror.  But the truth is, I can't.  At that point non-free programs are hidden from me.  True, I could go through the effort of looking up the hack to get to them on a NON OFFICIAL device forum somewhere and manually load them on - since they will not be allowed to be linked to on an official site NOR in the official 'store' NOR pre-loaded as links onto the device.

Effectively the FSF's RYF certification brings with it the requirement to create a walled garden all of it's own that is not all that different from Apple's.  If you want something that is not on their pre-approved list of applications, you'll have to go elsewhere, find a work-around and side-load it.  At that point you're out of the official support for the device and 'on your own' with stuff you won't even be allowed to reference and ask questions around in the main device community - assuming it's owned by the device manufacturer.  Why?  Because those discussions, references and links on an official site could be construed as describing and/or advertising device capabilities and the mere discussion of them implies endorsement.

Thus is the nature of totalitarianism.  Control the speech, control the actions, control the thought, stay in control.

If anyone offers you a chance to join the New Freedom Party - where joining only requires you to wear handcuffs and a blindfold and chant "Trust us it's better!" - would you?  Offering 'Freedom' and requiring abiding by a list of physical, behavioral and speech restrictions is simply silly.

And yes, it is the exact same thing as making me have to eat the cat.

 

[comradekingu]

Its like Sartre, only with another level of mental anguish. Any social or logical clues are just wind. I suppose rules don't apply if you don't know you are breaking them.

 

[WizardStan]

It is this censorship aspect that DIRECTLY inhibits the usage by people who are not concerned about the FSF's mission.

Ok, you're wrong but it's pretty obvious that I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I found myself getting unhealthily angry about the difficulty in getting you to understand last night, and it's probably best to just accept that it isn't going to happen.

 

[FaeMinx]

While I like what you're saying Grench on anti totalitarianism...I think it's extremely rude and actually hilariously absurd for a meat eater to visit a vegetarian and expect the vegetarian to cook meat for them, or to even have meat in the house for the guests to cook themselves. Hell, let's even go so far as to say that if the guests had any respect for their hosts, they wouldn't even be so rude and insensitive as to even suggest denaturing and consuming the flesh of murdered creatures in the same house.


My god! What a suggestion...

 

[Grench]

It is this censorship aspect that DIRECTLY inhibits the usage by people who are not concerned about the FSF's mission.

Ok, you're wrong but it's pretty obvious that I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I found myself getting unhealthily angry about the difficulty in getting you to understand last night, and it's probably best to just accept that it isn't going to happen.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  I've actually read the entire FSF manifesto and the detailed requirements for consideration for certification.  They are explicit about there EXCLUSION of advertising, discussing or even linking to capabilities that are outside of their 'Free' garden.  

For a user who wants to use a FSF certified device for applications or uses that are outside of the FSF "garden", they will be off and on their own as the manufacturer can no longer reference, link to or allow references and links to (or risk being considered as endorsing) paid content.

It is that censorship which leads to a restriction on use.  Yes, it is still possible to create, find and use non-Free software, but good luck finding it when the device manufacturer is no longer allowed to acknowledge the existence of it - or to allow it's existence to be noted by others on their systems.  Think that can't happen?  Think again.  Even on these forums for a device that marks one of it's main strengths as an emulator platform, the discussion of ROMs needs to be tiptoed around.  If we were to link up with the FSF, then even content created by community members wouldn't even be able to be discussed on a DragonBox Pyra site if the creators decided to get paid for their labor.

I call that direct inhibition.  Inhibition is not the same as prevention.

While I like what you're saying Grench on anti totalitarianism...I think it's extremely rude and actually hilariously absurd for a meat eater to visit a vegetarian and expect the vegetarian to cook meat for them, or to even have meat in the house for the guests to cook themselves. Hell, let's even go so far as to say that if the guests had any respect for their hosts, they wouldn't even be so rude and insensitive as to even suggest denaturing and consuming the flesh of murdered creatures in the same house.


My god! What a suggestion...

As absurd and hilarious as it might seem, the analogy still works.

Deconstruct your statements.

it is courteous for the meat eaters to offer the vegetarian items that work with their chosen diet and not require them to eat meat.

It is apparently OK for a meat eater to be denied their diet because...?

Now, reject any rationale that injects a moral imperative or ranks one group above the other.  It's two groups of people - both equal.

Which group is truly being discourteous to the 'other'?  

The one that gave their guest what they knew the guest wanted?  

Or the one that assumed the other should conform to their own standard because they consider their own preferences and thereby themselves to be 'better' than their guests?

Yes, when preparing food for vegetarian guests, I ensure that there is no cross contamination and that their food is perfect and balanced to their needs.  But, when I go out to visit vegetarians for supper, I have to stop and eat a cheeseburger on the way there or back so that I know I'll get fed properly.  Without claiming any moral superiority of one group or the other - how can that be 'right'?

 

[_wb_]

You do realize that a good vegetarian meal satisfies the dietary requirements of non-vegetarians, right? You will survive without the cheeseburger, I promise!

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

It is this censorship aspect that DIRECTLY inhibits the usage by people who are not concerned about the FSF's mission.

Ok, you're wrong but it's pretty obvious that I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I found myself getting unhealthily angry about the difficulty in getting you to understand last night, and it's probably best to just accept that it isn't going to happen.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  I've actually read the entire FSF manifesto and the detailed requirements for consideration for certification.  They are explicit about there EXCLUSION of advertising, discussing or even linking to capabilities that are outside of their 'Free' garden.  

For a user who wants to use a FSF certified device for applications or uses that are outside of the FSF "garden", they will be off and on their own as the manufacturer can no longer reference, link to or allow references and links to (or risk being considered as endorsing) paid content.

It is that censorship which leads to a restriction on use.  Yes, it is still possible to create, find and use non-Free software, but good luck finding it when the device manufacturer is no longer allowed to acknowledge the existence of it - or to allow it's existence to be noted by others on their systems.  Think that can't happen?  Think again.  Even on these forums for a device that marks one of it's main strengths as an emulator platform, the discussion of ROMs needs to be tiptoed around.  If we were to link up with the FSF, then even content created by community members wouldn't even be able to be discussed on a DragonBox Pyra site if the creators decided to get paid for their labor.

I call that direct inhibition.  Inhibition is not the same as prevention.

While I like what you're saying Grench on anti totalitarianism...I think it's extremely rude and actually hilariously absurd for a meat eater to visit a vegetarian and expect the vegetarian to cook meat for them, or to even have meat in the house for the guests to cook themselves. Hell, let's even go so far as to say that if the guests had any respect for their hosts, they wouldn't even be so rude and insensitive as to even suggest denaturing and consuming the flesh of murdered creatures in the same house.


My god! What a suggestion...

As absurd and hilarious as it might seem, the analogy still works.

Deconstruct your statements.

it is courteous for the meat eaters to offer the vegetarian items that work with their chosen diet and not require them to eat meat.

It is apparently OK for a meat eater to be denied their diet because...?

Now, reject any rationale that injects a moral imperative or ranks one group above the other.  It's two groups of people - both equal.

Which group is truly being discourteous to the 'other'?  

The one that gave their guest what they knew the guest wanted?  

Or the one that assumed the other should conform to their own standard because they consider their own preferences and thereby themselves to be 'better' than their guests?

Yes, when preparing food for vegetarian guests, I ensure that there is no cross contamination and that their food is perfect and balanced to their needs.  But, when I go out to visit vegetarians for supper, I have to stop and eat a cheeseburger on the way there or back so that I know I'll get fed properly.  Without claiming any moral superiority of one group or the other - how can that be 'right'?

Very well said.  How can I like this 2 times?  Or where is the Double Like button?  

 

[FaeMinx]

Hmmm....


Ok, so let me rethink.


I guess I originally assumed the meat eaters did so by personal preference and a different set of priorities / values. I.e . it is their choice.


If, however, eating meat is an actual dietry requirement... Then absolutely the vegetarians should suck it up and actually purchase, cook, and serve meat to their guests when they visit.


If they find this very hard to do, they should inform the guests before they arrive of the problem and try and find a solution together.


Perhaps the guests can cook and bring the meat themselves, and then add it to their serving. But this absolutely needs to be discussed before the guests arrive, even actually before they commit to coming for a visit.


I gave vegetarians special consideration because they cannot under any circumstances eat meat. Not even once every few months. So if they are not catered for they literally starve.


Not so for a meat eater, even when it is a dietry requirement... They can forgoe meat for just one meal and not have their whole being be compromised and invalidated because of it. They will be partially satisfied. They will not be able to stay in that environment however and will have to leave in order to survive...


Meat eaters are actually omnivores... that means they are flexible. You expect them to bend to circumstances and make use of whatever they can find.


Vegetarians are not flexible. They can't be flexible. If you expect flexibility from them, they are no longer vegetarians.


In the real world vegetarians *do* require more consideration because they have extra limitations placed on them that they do not have a choice about.


*if they have a choice, they aren't real vegetarians... only pretenders who would sabotage the vegetarian cause whenever they expressed any desire for meat or cheated just a little *because OMG bacon!*


These kind of people might give omnivores the wrong idea of what it means to be a vegetarian... that mostly vegetables 98% of the time is Ok to serve to them. It isn't.


I actually don't know where I'm going with this. I think I may have lost the analogy along the way.


... or maybe I didn't?

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

So FSF is a vegetarian who is not flexible and will be dead if no more veggies around.  Grench is an omnivore who is free to eat anything he wants and could to keep on living.  I think I want to be Grench

 

[WizardStan]

I've actually read the entire FSF manifesto and the detailed requirements for consideration for certification. They are explicit about there EXCLUSION of advertising, discussing or even linking to capabilities that are outside of their 'Free' garden.

Yes, that is all true. You're still wrong. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I already have.

 

[Grench]

You do realize that a good vegetarian meal satisfies the dietary requirements of non-vegetarians, right? You will survive without the cheeseburger, I promise!

Survive yes, but quite likely with great pain.

Hmmm....


Ok, so let me rethink.


I guess I originally assumed the meat eaters did so by personal preference and a different set of priorities / values. I.e . it is their choice.


If, however, eating meat is an actual dietry requirement... Then absolutely the vegetarians should suck it up and actually purchase, cook, and serve meat to their guests when they visit.

OK, so we're crossing the line from restrictions on content to label it 'Free' to the medical aspects of forced vegetarianism.  This gets a bit graphic in nature, but in the interest of science - onward!

Although it is possible for a meat eater to 'live' on a plate of beans and greens, it does wind up being a rather big blow to the digestive system if cut over too fast.  Frankly if the body hasn't had time to adjust to that much fiber and typically exotic plant matter, the result can be quite painful and embarrassing.

The digestible portion of fiber is broken down by enzymes in the digestive tract in a reaction that produces starch/sugar and methane.

The continuous vegetarian's digestive system has calibrated itself to only producing enough digestive enzymes to break down enough of the fiber in their diet to feed itself.

The meat eater's digestive system produces the same enzymes, but is calibrated to produce enough of it to break down ALL of the available digestible fiber consumed.  It's one of those less makes more things.

To suddenly switch someone from steak & potatoes to tofu and kale can result in painful gas and explosive stools.

The reverse is not true as an otherwise vegetarian who suddenly ingests meat's only strange effect is that their next stool floats instead of sinks.

For this reason, if I know I'm going to be stuck with a vegetarian meal, I'll eat elsewhere then eat a 'salad portion' of the beans & greens to be polite.

 

[FaeMinx]

So FSF is a vegetarian who is not flexible and will be dead if no more veggies around. Grench is an omnivore who is free to eat anything he wants and could to keep on living. I think I want to be Grench

I want to be a vegetarian, but I'm not going to call myself one until I no longer eat meat or even desire to.


It bothers me that I eat meat, and I get frustrated because my knowledge of vegetarian cooking is relatively limited and when I try to stick to it, find that I am not balancing my meals properly and am introducing deficiencies... In the end its a whole way of life and thinking that takes a lot of effort to get working properly.


I just don't have the time for this right now - I have more pressing priorities and I need to be able to grab a meal quickly and get back to what I'm doing. With meat it makes my life a lot simpler. I don't like how it makes my body feel, or that I am supporting something I disagree with on a fundamental level... I even prefer the taste of pure vegetarian meals.


My work requires that I am on the road. Very often I have to run into a store somewhere and grab a meal from the 'ready to go' counter.


There is always a huge selection of meat options. If I want to go vegetarian, it's limited... I have to try and make something fulfilling out of what was cooked to compliment the meat. It is almost always sub par and unappetising. And not balanced.


For a fulfilling meal I would have to seek out the ingredients and cook it myself. It is not convenient.


I wish there were more vegetarians so that convenience stores would be forced to provide complete, fully balanced, and appetizing vegetarian meals to go... or risk losing business. To that end, I feel it is my obligation to work towards being vegetarian in spite of the difficulty and inconvenience, and to encourage it whenever and wherever I can.


Then it would make it easier to stop eating what I don't actually want to.


But they don't want that. It is far more profitable selling meat and so they will deliberately make the meat options more complete and appetizing, and the vegetarian only options un-fulfilling.

 

[Grench]

So FSF is a vegetarian who is not flexible and will be dead if no more veggies around. Grench is an omnivore who is free to eat anything he wants and could to keep on living. I think I want to be Grench

I want to be a vegetarian, but I'm not going to call myself one until I no longer eat meat or even desire to.


It bothers me that I eat meat, and I get frustrated because my knowledge of vegetarian cooking is relatively limited and when I try to stick to it, find that I am not balancing my meals properly and am introducing deficiencies... In the end its a whole way of life and thinking that takes a lot of effort to get working properly.


I just don't have the time for this right now - I have more pressing priorities and I need to be able to grab a meal quickly and get back to what I'm doing. With meat it makes my life a lot simpler. I don't like how it makes my body feel, or that I am supporting something I disagree with on a fundamental level... I even prefer the taste of pure vegetarian meals.


My work requires that I am on the road. Very often I have to run into a store somewhere and grab a meal from the 'ready to go' counter.


There is always a huge selection of meat options. If I want to go vegetarian, it's limited... I have to try and make something fulfilling out of what was cooked to compliment the meat. It is almost always sub par and unappetising. And not balanced.


For a fulfilling meal I would have to seek out the ingredients and cook it myself. It is not convenient.


I wish there were more vegetarians so that convenience stores would be forced to provide complete, fully balanced, and appetizing vegetarian meals to go... or risk losing business. To that end, I feel it is my obligation to work towards being vegetarian in spite of the difficulty and inconvenience, and to encourage it whenever and wherever I can.


Then it would make it easier to stop eating what I don't actually want to.


But they don't want that. It is far more profitable selling meat and so they will deliberately make the meat options more complete and appetizing, and the vegetarian only options un-fulfilling.

There are only so many times in a row that a person can stomach a tub of hummus (beans) and a small relish tray (greens) from off of the back side of the deli counter.  I get the same way about having to eat a fast food joint burger and fries yet again and avoid it whenever possible.  Regardless of your dietary needs or choices, having broader choices is always preferable.  Good thing nobody has made an organization to actively censor your food choices.  At least that means that we're all welcome to make our own judgments and choices on what to eat and where to eat it from.  Real freedom.

That tied together neatly.  

 

[FaeMinx]

The reverse is not true as an otherwise vegetarian who suddenly ingests meat's only strange effect is that their next stool floats instead of sinks.

That's not actually true. Eating a steak after months of no meat whatsoever will make you decidedly ill. I haven't researched why and have nothing medical to back that up.
Just my own experience and hearsay from vegetarians who had no option but to eat meat in a certain situation.


All reports (and I can attest to it), is that you feel so rotten you wished you had nothing at all.


Symptoms can include severe stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, splitting headaches, diarea, loss of energy and motivation, dizziness.


(I didn't throw up, but wished I had)


It goes both ways.


Edit: this post was not made to argue about the fsf, just correcting an assumption.


It's all good.


Btw, I am with you on complete freedom... and the disapproval of censorship... I would just like it if being free the way I wanted to be wasn't so much work!

 

[diligentcircle]

Grench, I haven't redistributed any of your posts, so I guess I'm guilty of censoring you. Also, you haven't redistributed any of my posts, so you're guilty of censoring me. Amazing how easy censorship is these days, eh?

 

[bzar]

This thread is derailing into actually talking about vegetarianism instead of just using it as an analog. Split in 3... 2... 1...

 

[ible]

I think it's extremely rude and actually hilariously absurd for a meat eater to visit a vegetarian and expect the vegetarian to cook meat for them, or to even have meat in the house for the guests to cook themselves. Hell, let's even go so far as to say that if the guests had any respect for their hosts, they wouldn't even be so rude and insensitive as to even suggest denaturing and consuming the flesh of murdered creatures in the same house.


My god! What a suggestion...

I think it's nice to respect other's viewpoints, and not expect to eat meat when going over to a vegetarian's house.  (It's actually pretty healthy to eat vegetarian-style more often than you eat meat.)  But I do have a question for the vegans, who use this sort of language ("murdered flesh") to rail against the omnivores among us.

Other animals "murder" other animals (e.g. wolves eat chickens, deer, etc.), and sometimes just for fun (killer whales come to mind).  Does it really make sense to require of humans a higher standard than other animals?  If so, are we really that special?

Spoiler

Incidentally, I do believe we are special, but at present (with my limited understanding) I can only see a foundation for veganism in biblical creationism, where humans started out eating plants only, and death/disease/murder only entered the world after sin did.  I don't know how many vegans subscribe to that viewpoint...  Even then it's a bit inconsistent, unless you don't trust God in allowing people to eat animals after Noah's time...

Also, shouldn't the freedoms be given different bits on a binary scale?  

• Freedom 1 is to use the program,
• 2 is having free access to the source (if you have obtained the program legally) and being able to change it for your own private use,
• 4 is having freedom to redistribute binaries of the program to your neighbor (charging however much you want, or for free),
• 8 is freedom to redistribute your modified software to your friends (with whatever fees you like), but needing to provide your modified source if they ask for it (with a viral license on the source, of course) -- GPL
• 16 is freedom to redistribute your modified binaries (with fees, etc.) without having to disclose its source -- MIT

Let me know if that's (roughly) correct.