Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 10:45 pm Arthur J. O'Dwyer writes: > 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. Um, I've been using MS products for a long time, and I work for a company that is pretty much a Microsoft shop.... and I not only don't feel IN ANY WAY restricted, I actually feel *enabled* (often times, anyway). Recall that I've raised the challenge here to provide an alternate, non- MS way of doing something I do commonly, and no one has come close. The fact that MS software is "closed" has as much impact on me as the fact that the "computer" in my car is equally "closed". Which is to say exactly zero. >>> 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. No, it's an *opinion*, and obviously not one shared by everyone. (When I speak of a philosophical platform, I'm referring to the body of cogent work and thought that backs up that opinion.) > It's an axiom. Of course, you can also justify it by the Golden Rule, > as above; or by Kant's categorical imperative. Let's see you try it. > But in general, moral judgments do not require justification beyond > "I know what's right and wrong." See below. No, those are moral opinions, again. Moral judgements are (or should be) based on something more substantial than, "Well, the way I see it is...." Consider just the issue of precedence: is there any other result of someone's work that society feels should be freely available? Why? Because it'd be really cool that way? Maybe so, but that's not any sort of moral imperative. >>> 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 Nonsense. There are actions that all sane, civilized people will agree are wrong. More to the point, you can demonstrate exactly WHY that agreement exists. (Ask 100 people if they'd like to be murdered today--my guess you'll get 100 "NO!"s You've asked a bunch of people a different question here and have NOT gotten a unanimous response.) >>> Some people actually believe that pot-smoking is /wrong/, in the >>> absolute moral sense. >> >> They're just plain wrong. > > Egotism. No, facts, actually. >> 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. SO DOES SOFTWARE. It costs overhead. It costs eductation. It costs my time to produce. It costs my time to maintain. Chances are hammers could be produced in volume for approximately the same burden rate. Why should the people who make them give them away? >>>> 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 think Wikipedia and other free resources are WONDERFUL, but I do NOT feel they are my "right". Wiki's not a problem, but many of those other "free" resources are so ad-bloated as to be unusable to me. And the reason is that someone has to PAY the overhead and time. That there are people willing to give their time freely makes the world a nicer place, but that doesn't translate into moral imperative to do so. >>> 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. Why? So you could correct the typesetting errors so you wouldn't notice them next time? You have too much free time. It's a lot faster to just ignore them. Maybe more to the point I have zero interest in a free copy that I could correct. I can't even fathom the desire. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .