[playogg-discuss] playogg/faq: unclear phrase

[Ineiev]

CCing to the list, sorry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ineiev <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 14:22:30 +0000
Subject: Re: [playogg-discuss] playogg/faq: unclear phrase
To: Oleg Koptev <address@hidden>

Hi, Oleg!

Oleg Koptev wrote:
> Completely off-topic, but anyway:

Actually, not quite: we discuss the attitude of the campaign
to those who keep publicly available software proprietary (which
attitude results in certain "unclear phrases").

> #1 he/she may have strong POV on development and style of project.
> #2 he/she may have plans to sell that piece of software in future.
> #3 he/she may have eccentric mind and don't want to share. Oddish, but have
> chance to be.

Thanks. all these reasons sound realistic in my opinion.
and undoubtly the developers are free to follow any of them.

> i can continue.

I'd appreciate it.

> Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason
>> they might have or because you have some other proof?
>
> For example - I know them personally.

Is this the logic you wanted from FSF?

To be of any relevance, the statement has to imply either
* no people can spy if you know them personally (why?)
or
* you know about the developers something that excludes
   that behaviour (however you don't tell directly about it)

I know you implied something reasonable, but I failed
to get any hint on what it is.

>> Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
>>> think that EULA's are written by the companies...
>>>
>> Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will.
>
> Free-will is will to choose.

And they are not free to choose whether to include the clauses.
they are not free to choose whether to switch the feature off.
they are not free to choose whether they may know what data
are sent to the owner and when. they can't choose.

(I shan't mention the fact that freedom is something more than
freedom of choice from a set of options
somebody else offers to you.)

> You have will to not agree with EULA and press
> 'No' 'Quit' in anytime.

True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't,
if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature,
then I may speak of spying.

>>   If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's
>>> not
>>> give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education
>>> issue I think.
>>>
>> Nonetheless, an unconscious free-will assignment is nonsense.
>
> Unconscious acts often leads to no good.

The question was not whether it was good or bad.
and the point is there were no voluntary consent;
it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying.

>>  I don't think the punishment is a strong guarantee.
>> just my personal point of view.
>
> :) Strong guarantee may give only god.

There are some guarantees essentially stronger
than the punishment, though (in my humble opinion).

Best regards,
Ineiev