Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote
(in article
<Pine.LNX.4.60-041.0508241405430.3383@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

>> 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

I was being sarcastic. Everyone wants money to survive (with
the possible exception of someone living off the land in the
wilderness, with no taxes to pay), even the guy begging on a
street corner living in a box wants people to give him some. If
it is immoral to try and make money, then everyone on the planet
is immoral, in which case there isn't much point in worrying
about it. I happen to not believe that trying to provide
funding for yourself and any family members for food, shelter,
clothing, etc. is immoral. If you believe otherwise, I'm keen
to hear why.

> --- greed is a sin, especially dog-in-the-manger-type greed.

You snipped the part where I said this hypothetical programmer
was trying to avoid eating dog-food in his old age. How is that
a sin? I'm very interested in understanding this.

>> "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.

Probably. However, Wikipedia isn't kid-safe, or even work-safe
in quite a few of its pages right now. I am sure this will get
'worse' later on. I have worked in more than one company that
would fire you if a co-worker walked by and saw some of the
content there. I think you can figure it out without specific
examples, but if not, I'll provide a couple.


>> 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,

Why should you or I have the authority to take away someone
else's property?

> or just teach them how to use them? (Assuming we agree that the
> "let them wallow in their own filth" solution is immoral.)

If I buy a barn full of CNC machinery that I am incapable of
using properly, is it /immoral/ for you not to send someone over
and teach me how to use it? How is the knowledge that someone
in your neighborhood owns a computer but does not know how to
use it properly immoral? How is that letting them 'wallow in
their own filth'? You throw around the term 'immoral' just
about anywhere, but don't seem to feel the need for any
underlying argument to justify the claim.

>> 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.

So you also see the comparison between Stallman and
charlatans^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H evangelists or cult leaders?

> Certainly it makes sense: if you know what's right, shouldn't
> you let other people know, too?

I agree completely that he has the right to say his piece. You
also have the right to not agree with him. He claims that you
disagreeing with him is immoral. That is what I have trouble
with.

> In fact, isn't it a moral duty to prevent
> evil from occurring in the world?

Women and children are being hourly (perhaps by the second) all
over the planet. I contend that working on that problem is more
important, and 'more moral' than worrying about open source
availability and telling programmers what they can and can not
do with their skills. If it is your moral duty to prevent evil,
it is far clearer to me that rape is evil than working on
closed-source software is evil. YMMV.

> 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.

Exactly. He's equating closed source software with murder. You
might as well equate not mowing your yard on a regular basis,
thereby annoying the neighborhood ladies auxiliary with murder.
It makes just as much sense.

>>>> 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.

You honestly consider 'kidnapping' to be a field of endeavor
that someone might put on a tax return or otherwise claim as a
profession? I was thinking of jobs like doctor, accountant,
show salesman, factory worker, author, airline pilot, garbage
collector, truck driver, bank teller, school teacher, auto
mechanic, formula 1 crew chief, secretary, guidance counselor,
etc.

> How about prostitution?

How about it?

> Political corruption (e.g., living on lobbyists' money)?

Most, but not all of these activities are illegal. the problem
is in obtaining convictions. There are no laws against
programmers working on commercial software development in
general. There may be some laws about writing specific types of
software (like viruses), but I don't know of anyone willing to
pay money for a virus, or any being offered for sale <insert
joke about Windows being a virus here>.

> Selling used cars that turn out to be lemons, or stolen?

In the state I live in, we have lemon laws, and protection of
consumers in such situations. They are illegal acts. See above
about how this is not similar to programming.

> Cracking copyrighted DVDs and selling copies on the street?

Illegal. See above.

> Heroin pushing?

Illegal. See above.

>
> What are you looking for here?

Some sanity. Comparing illegal acts with legal acts and
pretending they are similar is irrational. If you want to have
credibility on the topic of writing commercial software being
illegal, then you need to show some jurisdiction in which it is
actually illegal. How is the 'Stallman Act to Remove the Evil
Stain of Closed Source Software for the Benefit of the Children,
2005' doing in congress anyway?


> 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.

The actual reason for you admitting defeat, based upon the above
sentence might be due to your lack of reading comprehension. I
never said any of the above were not wrong. I have said,
consistently and repeatedly the opposite. What I have not said,
and will not say, is that being paid to write close source
software is illegal, or even immoral.

> I can't keep up an argument about morality
> with someone who doesn't believe in right and wrong! :(

That's interesting. Let me know when you find one of those
people, and we'll gang tackle him.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.