"claiming moral superiority while acting self-interested is misleading and false."
Huh? Since when did being moral and being self-interested become mutually exclusive? And secondly, when did I say the GPL was 'morally superior'? Not only does your statement not make sense, it implies I said something I did not.
"You don't like the consequences of a truly moral decision? Don't make it."
Wait, what are you saying? What is the 'moral', what is the 'decision', and why wouldn't I like it? You seem to like to argue by making statements that don't actually have a statement.
Are you trying to imply that using the GPL is a moral descision? That I'm not going to like the consequences of making that decision, and that I shouldn't make it? I feel like a dog chasing my tail here.
"There's an easy check: Imaging a world without freedom of speech, and you'll know it's an essential value. Imaging a world without free software, and you'll miss nothing important at all; nothing that cannot be gained by using mere open source software."
Go back in time 300 years to find your world without free speech. Or just move to a non free country where there still isn't free speech. Look at how China restricts speech today. Since so many still do not have this freedom, does that make it non essential? They are all getting by, aren't they?
Also, most open source software is also free software. Compare the list of approved 'open source' licenses with the FSF's list of approved 'free software' licenses. A world without free software would be a world without open source software.
"This is also what makes your analogy about conflicting freedoms misleading: Your so-called 'free' software is not essential, and it's thus always inferior to any essential freedom. For example, if a clause in the GPL would require me to never write anything bad about the GPL "to protect the freedom of people", it would probably still be OK from a contract point of view. However, everybody would clearly see that you can't claim moral superiority for your choice of a license because it would clearly restrict the freedom of speech."
What makes a freedom essential is debatable. There are billions of people in the world today that do not have the freedom of speech. Do they consider it essential? You do, and I do, but if you've never had that freedom, do you consider it essential?
Let me paraphrase your argument: If the GPL restricted your freedom of speech, it would be ok legally, from a contractual perspective, but it would be immoral because it limits your free speech.
Ok, I'll admit that. But wait, the GPL doesn't do that. So your argument is null and void.
As a side note, I like the GPL for practical reasons. I do not hold the moral reasons up on a pedestal like a religion. However from a practical standpoint, as both a developer and a user, I find the GPL does an excellent job protecting the interests of both, without granting either one rights to stampede the other.
Furthermore, if you want to claim that the GPL is not morally superior, back that up with facts. What essential freedom does the GPL take away from you? As I like to say, put up or shut up.
"To be even more precise: Don't expect respect for making wrong and misleading statements!"
Show me the wrong and misleading statements.
"Right now choosing the GPL is just as moral as choosing a proprietary lisence."
Your point? It's not wrong to choose a non-free licnese, but I think someone who uses a free license is a more morally inclined person than someone who doesn't. It's the difference between the wealthy man who gives money to charity, and the wealthy man who keeps it all to himself. Neither is wrong, but I think everyone would agree that giving something to someone and letting them do with it what they want is alot more generous than keeping it to yourself. And what the wealthy man who gives to charity understands, is that when you help others, the benefits of that help often come back to you in ways that were bigger than the initial investment. Just look at the effect Linus Torvalds had on the world by releasing Linux under the GPL.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re: Sorry, but that's not true.
Posted by: Jeremy Akers on July 17, 2006 11:40 AMHuh? Since when did being moral and being self-interested become mutually exclusive? And secondly, when did I say the GPL was 'morally superior'? Not only does your statement not make sense, it implies I said something I did not.
"You don't like the consequences of a truly moral decision? Don't make it."
Wait, what are you saying? What is the 'moral', what is the 'decision', and why wouldn't I like it? You seem to like to argue by making statements that don't actually have a statement.
Are you trying to imply that using the GPL is a moral descision? That I'm not going to like the consequences of making that decision, and that I shouldn't make it? I feel like a dog chasing my tail here.
"There's an easy check: Imaging a world without freedom of speech, and you'll know it's an essential value. Imaging a world without free software, and you'll miss nothing important at all; nothing that cannot be gained by using mere open source software."
Go back in time 300 years to find your world without free speech. Or just move to a non free country where there still isn't free speech. Look at how China restricts speech today. Since so many still do not have this freedom, does that make it non essential? They are all getting by, aren't they?
Also, most open source software is also free software. Compare the list of approved 'open source' licenses with the FSF's list of approved 'free software' licenses. A world without free software would be a world without open source software.
"This is also what makes your analogy about conflicting freedoms misleading: Your so-called 'free' software is not essential, and it's thus always inferior to any essential freedom. For example, if a clause in the GPL would require me to never write anything bad about the GPL "to protect the freedom of people", it would probably still be OK from a contract point of view. However, everybody would clearly see that you can't claim moral superiority for your choice of a license because it would clearly restrict the freedom of speech."
What makes a freedom essential is debatable. There are billions of people in the world today that do not have the freedom of speech. Do they consider it essential? You do, and I do, but if you've never had that freedom, do you consider it essential?
Let me paraphrase your argument: If the GPL restricted your freedom of speech, it would be ok legally, from a contractual perspective, but it would be immoral because it limits your free speech.
Ok, I'll admit that. But wait, the GPL doesn't do that. So your argument is null and void.
As a side note, I like the GPL for practical reasons. I do not hold the moral reasons up on a pedestal like a religion. However from a practical standpoint, as both a developer and a user, I find the GPL does an excellent job protecting the interests of both, without granting either one rights to stampede the other.
Furthermore, if you want to claim that the GPL is not morally superior, back that up with facts. What essential freedom does the GPL take away from you? As I like to say, put up or shut up.
"To be even more precise: Don't expect respect for making wrong and misleading statements!"
Show me the wrong and misleading statements.
"Right now choosing the GPL is just as moral as choosing a proprietary lisence."
Your point? It's not wrong to choose a non-free licnese, but I think someone who uses a free license is a more morally inclined person than someone who doesn't. It's the difference between the wealthy man who gives money to charity, and the wealthy man who keeps it all to himself. Neither is wrong, but I think everyone would agree that giving something to someone and letting them do with it what they want is alot more generous than keeping it to yourself. And what the wealthy man who gives to charity understands, is that when you help others, the benefits of that help often come back to you in ways that were bigger than the initial investment. Just look at the effect Linus Torvalds had on the world by releasing Linux under the GPL.
-Jeremy
#