Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 03:55 pm, 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.

I for one did not say you couldn't, I said who would. Let's try to avoid 
straw 
men unless we label them.
>
>   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. 

OK, so you are proposing including a long list of restrictions? As opposed to 
the general statement - this software cannot be used for unethical purposes?

> 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. 

It is correct according to the people generally thought of as the leaders in 
the Free Software movement. See for example:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

They consider it Freedom 0.

Now, any of us are free to think t hat they are wrong and argue our point, 
but 
you go a bit overboard when you state that people who point this out to you 
have not put any thought into the issue and are giving you idiotic 
non-rebuttals.

> 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.

Again, do you have some worldwide ethical standard that everyone agrees to, 
or 
are you going to spell out each restriction clause by clause?

Right to life or Pro choice... Who will you restrict?
>
>   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.

If you are really not a troll, you might get further if you did not insult 
everyone who tried to engage you in discourse by calling their logic crappy.

Where are your actual arguments? I must have missed them.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22