Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 05:57:05 JST Alexandre Oliva

   • Ed
   "here's a knife. don't hurt others with it."
   what's morally objectionable about this?
   to me it's morally sensible.
   
   your wish for "without restrictions" is what doesn't make moral sense to me. anything carries restrictions we're normally subject to, from law, from social norms and expectations, from our own consciences.
   
   but some people weirdly think they should not only be entitled to deprive others of freedom, but to use the fruit of our labor to that end. why should it be morally objectionable to tell them that it's not their freedom to do so, and thus refrain from granting them this power over others?
   
   conversely, if they believe it's acceptable to deprive others of something as essential as freedom, how could they object with a straight face to being deprived of freedom?
   except that what copyleft does is not to deprive them of freedom (control over one's own life), it refrains from granting them power (control over others' lives), which is not even their freedom to begin with.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 07:22:57 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Ed
     the prohibitions imposed by copyright also apply equally to all licensees, non-licensees, and co-licensors.
     and what's more, the gpl, being a copyright license (rather than a licensing agreements), only grants permissions. it doesn't prohibit you from doing anything whatsoever. it's copyright that does. the gpl only grants you narrow exceptions, that enable you to control your computing, and to do whatever you wish with the software, without granting you power to go beyond your own freedom as to violate others' freedoms.
     why do you seem to find that objectionable? why do you seem to resent not being granted power to abuse others?
   • Embed this notice
     Ed (peepstein@mstdn.social)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 07:22:58 JST Ed

     in reply to

     @lxo your first sentence describes a false analogy. You cannot compare physical harm with a weapon and access to a tool in general. One reason is that the prohibition on harming someone applies equally to all member of society at all times, while copyleft licenses do not. One does not need to receive a knife in order to be given the admonition not to do harm. However copyleft restrictions apply only in the case of distribution of compiled software.

     翠星石 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 07:44:21 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Ed
     GPL has to do with freedom, not power. if that's not what you mean by liberty, maybe adjust your expectations, and please keep the distinction in mind. you haven't shown that the gpl deprives you of any freedom, despite claiming before that it curtails freedom. please don't spread FUD, even if you disagree with the license or its goals. thanks.
     have a good one
   • Embed this notice
     Ed (peepstein@mstdn.social)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 07:44:22 JST Ed

     in reply to

     @lxo being given compiled binary code while not being given source code is not abuse. It’s offensive to people who have suffered real abuse to use such language. Anyway we are clearly not going to agree on this so I am finished with this ridiculousness it’s very simple: don’t use GPL software if the license does not fit your use case. But also don’t claim that the GPL has anything to do with Liberty when Liberty means fewer restrictions on lawful behavior.