Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)


On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Randy Howard wrote:
Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Randy Howard wrote: 

If you can not work on commercial software projects
without being immoral (in his opinion anyway),
[...]
since he is opposed to making money 

Stop with the strawman already.


What if you do not want anyone else to benefit from your labor?
What if you are a greedy ***

Well, that's the point. If you're a greedy ***, then you /are/
a greedy ***. Your choice of words indicates that you at least acknowledge the morality-oriented view --- greed is a sin, especially
dog-in-the-manger-type greed.

[...] 
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2004/10/21/
free-knowledge-requires-free-software-and-free-file-formats/


"Through our work, every single person on the planet will have
easy low cost access to free knowledge to empower them to do
whatever it is that they want to do."

Ever study much about how cults operate and manipulate people?
This is a fallacy.  "Every single person on the planet" will not
even see a computer in their lifetime.  Many will never even
have electricity, but somehow open source software will fix all
that.  Childish, at best.

I agree. I have no illusions that Wikipedia is providing /all/ people with free knowledge. As long as it provides all my friends with knowledge, and a bunch of middle-class English-speaking Europeans, that's still a sight better than no free knowledge at all.

Once again, the fallacy that all users are programmers. *sigh*

No, just the fallacy that all computer users know how to use computers. ;) 

That is a fallacy.  I have encountered more than my fair share
of "users" who meet the old TSTOAC acronym.  (Too stupid to own
a computer).

Yeah, I know. The question is, should we actually take away their computers, or just teach them how to use them? (Assuming we agree that the "let them wallow in their own filth" solution is immoral.)

[...] 
Less disingenuously, the fallacy that all computer users who want a
problem solved badly enough will solve it themselves, or else pay someone
else to solve it.
   ("But wait!" you say. "If they paid someone to do it, wouldn't they
naturally distribute the resulting program as non-GPL, so as to make a lot
of money off the solution?" Yes, says Stallman, if they were immoral
bastards.  Not if they were committed to Doing Right even at an
opportunity cost to themselves.)


So these programmers would be restricting trade by the force of
their 'moral' convictions so that others could not even hire
them to help them out.  Lovely.  This of course is built on the
completely false premise that all programmers on the planet, or
at least the competent ones, will /all/ convert to his religion
and grow a beard.  Good luck.

Right. I think it's significant that Stallman is American, and the United States has a long and distinguished tradition of evangelism,
from the Southern Baptist Church to Manifest Destiny. We Americans
like to think that we /can/ make others "see the light," for better
or worse. Certainly it makes sense: if you know what's right, shouldn't you let other people know, too? In fact, isn't it a moral duty to prevent evil from occurring in the world? Stallman's simply applying the same tactics to "Thou shalt not restrict freedom" that the Judeo-Christian tradition applies to "Thou shalt not kill," "Honor thy mother and thy father," "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and so on.

[...] 
And I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that it is
immoral to work for a living in the field of which you are most
competent.  Feel free to provide one at your convenience.

Kidnapping for ransom. 

As expected, no realistic answer was forthcoming.  You make my
point for me here.  Thank you.


  I provided a field in which it is possible, yet immoral, to work
for a living. I thought that was what you were asking for.
  How about prostitution?
  Political corruption (e.g., living on lobbyists' money)?
  Selling used cars that turn out to be lemons, or stolen?
  Cracking copyrighted DVDs and selling copies on the street?
  Heroin pushing?

What are you looking for here? If you're going to respond to every example with, "Oh, but my ethical system does not consider (stealing,
murder, copyright infringement, drug dealing) to be wrong," then I'm
going to have to admit defeat. I can't keep up an argument about morality with someone who doesn't believe in right and wrong! :(

-Arthur
.