Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Arthur J. O'Dwyer
Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 02:52 pm


On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Chris Sonnack wrote:
> Arthur J. O'Dwyer writes:
>>[Randy Howard wrote:]
>>> 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.

But Randy apparently would, judging from his comment above. That question 
was directed solely at him (or rather, at the hypothetical devil's 
advocate he's playing in this discussion).

> Certain acts can be defined as innately wrong.  Easiest way to
> make a rough cut is apply the old Golden Rule.

   Yes. I was thinking yesterday that Stallman's much more of a Golden Rule 
believer than for example myself. Heck, I /worked/ at Microsoft this 
summer, making software to restrict the freedom of the consumer. Now, I 
certainly wouldn't want my /own/ freedom restricted in that way, but I'm 
cowardly enough to take money for doing unto others. Stallman wouldn't.
You say you would, but then you also invoke the Golden Rule, so I really 
have no idea what your true position is.

>> 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.

Duh --- "non-free software is wrong" /is/ the philosophical platform. It's 
an axiom. Of course, you can also justify it by the Golden Rule, as above; 
or by Kant's categorical imperative. But in general, moral judgments do 
not require justification beyond "I know what's right and wrong." See 
below.

[...]
>> 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.

"That" being the fact that /you think/ something? And you accuse Stallman 
of egotism! :D

>> 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.

The free-versus-nonfree-software issue, however, is in your opinion /not/ 
an undecided social issue? :P

>> Some people actually believe that pot-smoking is /wrong/, in the
>> absolute moral sense.
>
> They're just plain wrong.

Egotism.

>> 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.)

Egotism.

[...]
>> 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.)

   Obviously anything free is okay!  The question is whether /non/-free 
hammers would be okay --- and of course the answer is "yes," given that 
hammers cost money (in the form of raw materials) to produce.

>>> Are copyrighted books morally wrong?
>>
>> According to Stallman, no, because they're not "tools."
>
> Hey, Richard, guess what, "C Unleashed" is entertainment!!!

Yes, that's what I just said. If you're trying to make an oblique point 
about documentation, you should look up the GFDL (which is what Wikipedia, 
among others, uses).



>> I've been reading Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" in the past couple of
>> weeks,...
>
> Good read!  I like Stephenson.

But you see my point?  Stephenson's version of "Cryptonomicon" sucks, 
because it has so many trivial errors. A free version of the same book 
(free as in code; obviously he'd still want to give users the option to 
pay for it, and many of them would) would be infinitely better. (BTW, I 
noticed that his Web site says, "If you want to tell me about 
typographical errors in /Cryptonomicon/, thank you, but don't bother.
I am aware that the book has many typos. The publisher and I are trying
to fix as many as we can in a subsequent printing."

-Arthur

.