@tirifto @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @ryo
> If a program spies on me, and I am free to make it stop, it respects my freedom (in that regard)
Yes I agree, like a malware licensed with GPL respects your freedom. Because you can make it malware-less. A closed source malware without free license disrespects your freedom because we are not allowed to make it spy on us, and our freedom is not being respected. Both do nasty things, but the former is FOSS by definition - then what? What are the 4 FOSS laws for? Maybe some just wanted to win a debate on application of the 4 FOSS laws (instead on the meaning of "freedom"). But let's look in a more practical view about freedom.

We can only essentially have freedom when the predictors big bad guys has not chosen us as the next prey. This can only be guaranteed by protecting our privacy, not showing anything unnecessary without consent - not even something they claim as "harmless" (I would never never expect a thief to broadcast "Yay I am going to steal someone's thing!!! Try to catch me ;p !!!") . Similar to the "Nothing to Hide" argument. Privacy is not included inside the 4 FOSS laws, but it is essential for protecting freedom in practice.

And when everyone keep a blind eye on "minor harms", once they have grown enough popularity, they will be enforced as part of our life and essentially we will lose our freedom. A live example is the current web environment (abuse of web "standards" and the abuse of JavaScript and Cloudflare) and the trend of systemd (Hey, systemd is FOSS!). The 4 FOSS laws does not, and probably cannot consider such problems.

Axioms in general have the problem of oversimplifying things. They limit our thinking. They are only fine when applied to simple matters or simply used as a reference, or when used in an academic debate (there's usually no prize winning an online debate, however).

Complexity and readability of source code is another issue on the 4 FOSS laws.