Re: [GNU-linux-libre] youtube-dl might be running non-free software from

[Jade Levesque]

On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 09:38:34AM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> The "rights" do not just come because somebody says so, subject of
> rights is complicated.
> 
> While you may certainly receive free software with the license that
> permits you to use it to kill somebody, such right cannot be derived
> from a software license, so in that sense reasoning cannot be perfect.
> 
> That is extreme example.
> 
> Less extreme example would be to face the court when breaking laws
> about the penetration of computer systems.
> 
> An accused cracker could then try to defend himself in court: "But I
> have got freedom zero, that I can use the software for whatever
> purpose I want" -- judge could reply "sure, 10 years in prison".
> 
> Jean

The right to use a program to violate a TOS does come just because the
author said so-- it's right there in freedom zero.
But that doesn't mean you'd be free from repercussions for doing so--
Google could still (I mean, they wouldn't, they don't care nearly
enough, but hypothetically) take you to court. Freedom zero isn't
supposed to free you of responsibility for what you do with the program--
it's to ensure you that you may do anything with the program, including
illegal things, as far as the author is concerned.
Yes, if a license said "you have the right to kill somebody with this
software package," you would be able to do so without getting in trouble
with the software author-- but, of course, there's everyone else to get
in trouble with, including the state. Freedom zero is only supposed to
protect the user from the author.

Jade