Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 01:05 pm Arthur J. O'Dwyer writes: >> There is nothing remotely similar between programming and >> illegal acts. Unless you can point to a law that makes it >> illegal to work developing commercial software (in general), the >> above is a total crock of excrement. > > If murder was legal, you'd be cool with it? No. Certain acts can be defined as innately wrong. Easiest way to make a rough cut is apply the old Golden Rule. > Remember, nobody is claiming that non-free software is > /illegal/. It's wrong. But there is no philosophical platform from which to make such a claim. The claim is entirely egregious, IMO. > The facts that pot-smoking is illegal in parts of the USA, and > murder is illegal pretty much everywhere,... I can't lay my hands on the latin terms (thought one was "mal dictum", but Google turns up little of quick value), but there are two basic types of laws: laws that come from a moral point of view (such as the one against murder), and laws that have no moral basis, but only serve to regulate some aspect of social behavior (such as the ones against smoking pot). Abortion gets sticky, because you have two conflicting moral imperatives: free will vs: destruction of another. Parsed in this sense, Stallman's probably the immoral one, since he advocates something potentially harmful to individuals with no unique and superior return value (by which I mean that it is possible to get high quality, reasonably-priced software in lot of ways, not just through Stallman's conceit). > I mean, some people actually believe that murder is /wrong/, in the > absolute moral sense. I would think ALL REASONABLE people do--that's one hallmark of having some certainty of the correctness of the position. > Some people actually believe that abortion is /wrong/, in the > absolute moral sense. That's one a lot harder. That it's a majorly undecided social issue is a hallmark of two *morally* valid, conflicting, points of view. > Some people actually believe that pot-smoking is /wrong/, in the > absolute moral sense. They're just plain wrong. > And Stallman believes that the dissemination and use of non-free > software is /wrong/, in the absolute moral sense. And so's he. (For the same reasons.) >> Why isn't stallman insisting that artists >> don't charge for their paintings or sculpture, > > I actually asked him something along these lines back in May, when he > spoke at Pitt. He doesn't see anything wrong with restricting the > consumer's rights.... *Consumer's* rights? What about the *Artist's*? > ...when it comes to essentially "entertainment" products like > music, art, or DVDs. He views software as distinguished by its nature > as a "tool" for /getting things done/. Hyper-intelligent people should stick to their area of hyper-intelligence. They often appear to be kinda dumb outside of it. Art is NOT optional in a healthy society. Art IS a tool for getting things done. > IIRC, I asked what he thought about non-free screensavers, and he > said something like, well, that might be okay. But free screwdrivers and hammers would be okay? (They can be made so cheaply that the material costs are close to zero--close enough to make the point, I think.) >> Are copyrighted books morally wrong? > > According to Stallman, no, because they're not "tools." Hey, Richard, guess what, "C Unleashed" is entertainment!!! > I've been reading Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" in the past couple of > weeks,... Good read! I like Stephenson. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .