Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 27 Nov 2005, at 20:55, phyllostachys nuda wrote:

> 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.

The moral content of an action may be dependent on intent or may be  
context-dependent, which will be hard to capture in a license.

> 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?

The GPL's restriction is reflexive. The ethical wrong that the GPL  
prevents is hackers being prevented from hacking.

Your restriction is not reflexive. Torture is a subset of the actions  
that can be taken to prevent people hacking, but this is not the most  
interesting thing about it.

> There isnt any philosophical difference.

Yes there is. Your restriction is not reflexive.

> The principle is the same.

No it is not. You are seeking to exert moral pressure on activities  
outside the domain of creativity by withdrawing access to creative  
work. This is not the same as the GPL, which only withdraws access to  
creative work if the ability of others to create is threatened.

> Apply moral standards to code, and use copyright law to do it.

Stallman does phrase his argument in terms of ethics, but only in a  
very specific domain.

> Now, I would really like someone to a ctually put thought into this  
> issue and give a real reply, instead of these idiotic non-rebuttals  
> that I have heard a million times.

You asked a question and have been answered, coherently. If you can  
refute the criticisms of your argument then do so.

> Your logic is crappy and 'blowing off the troll' is not the same  
> thing as making a coherent argument.

No-one has treated you as a troll. But the ethical license idea, and  
you are not the first person to suggest such a license, falls down as  
soon as you ask whether using your work to advance the causes of  
abortion, the death penalty, eminent domain seizure of property, or  
anticapitalist riots, is ethical. Yes, you have answers, but so do  
people on the other side of the political spectrum from you. And they  
will be the opposite answers.

Your license cannot define which of these actions is "ethical" for  
other people, or which actions in general are ethical. In contrast  
the GPL is the product of a philosophy that defines only one thing as  
unethical: preventing hacking. Your license will feature "ethical" as  
a free term. The GPL realises a particular "ethic" through its  
specific clauses.

- Rob.