cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: phyllostachys nuda <phnuda AT yahoo.com>
- To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Yes you can decide what is ethical and what is unethical. That is at the very core of what it means to be a human being instead of an animal.
Now defining what is right and wrong in law, thats kind of difficult. But civilization has been doing a better and better job as centuries pass. For example, nowdays civilized countries have freedom of speech, they don't use 'cruel and unusual' punishment, they dont use torture, they dont use the death penalty, they dont use biological weapons of mass destruction, and several other principles that are found in the constitutions of most civilized countries, the UN declaration of human rights, the Geneva Conventions, and other codifications of ethics.
Most civilized people understand that biological weapons of mass destruction programs are morally wrong and should not be done. Now, to impose a restriction on the use of software, such as 'this software cannot be used to
create biological weapons of mass destruction', is not something that is vague or hard to interpret. This will not 'change over time' either. No future human society is suddenly going to decide that creating biological weapons of mass destruction is a good idea and good for civilization.
As for 'its not free software if you put restrictions on it'... that is not correct. You are already putting restrictions on the software by using GPL. The whole point of the GPL is to put moral restrictions on use of code via copyright law. It just so happens that that 'moral restriction' is that 'you cant restrict others freedom with this code'. Well, my 'moral restriction' is that 'you cant torture people to death with this code'. What is the difference? There isnt any philosophical difference. The principle is the same. Apply moral standards to code, and use copyright law to do it.
Now, I would really like someone to actually
put thought into this issue and give a real reply, instead of these idiotic non-rebuttals that I have heard a million times. Your logic is crappy and 'blowing off the troll' is not the same thing as making a coherent argument.
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
-
[cc-licenses] human rights license,
phyllostachys nuda, 11/27/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
drew Roberts, 11/27/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, Alexandre Dulaunoy, 11/27/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, Greg London, 11/27/2005
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
phyllostachys nuda, 11/27/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, Peter Brink, 11/27/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
Rob Myers, 11/27/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
drew Roberts, 11/27/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
Terry Hancock, 11/28/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, Terry Hancock, 11/28/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
Terry Hancock, 11/28/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
drew Roberts, 11/27/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, drew Roberts, 11/27/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, Greg London, 11/28/2005
- Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license, phyllostachys nuda, 11/30/2005
-
Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license,
drew Roberts, 11/27/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.