4 ms·
You don't need to break 'life-threatening' rule to compromise your reputation. It's just about who is trustworthy and reliable, and who is not, especially in a
by trymas 11y ago
You don't need to break 'life-threatening' rule to compromise your reputation.
It's just about who is trustworthy and reliable, and who is not, especially in an organisation where people are very educated and probably with high morality standards.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoNope you just have to prove to be an officious pompous organisation which bullies it's people. Which CERN certainly has here. Go CERN.
- sbuk 11y agoYou really are going too far. CERN haven't 'bullied' anyone. The individual broke the law, why should CERN pay?
- JupiterMoon 11y agoAs has already been established repeatedly on this thread quite possibly no one should pay. If I send you an invoice for $30000 it does not mean that you owe it to me merely that I am demanding it.
- sbuk 11y agoSo the bully is AllSIM; CERN are merely passing the invoice on to the relevant party...
- JupiterMoon 11y agoNo the bullies are AllSIM, CERN and the University. CERN or possibly the University employed the student. They are the relevant party. AllSIM are almost ridiculous with this speculative invoice.
- sbuk 11y agoRight, I'm going to try and put this in very simple terms. The student is the one who broke the law. HE deserves to be punished. CERN are not the employer, the University are. HE was seconded to CERN by the University. However, the actions HE took were done on HIS own. Had HE been directed to pirate the software by either CERN or the Univerity, then you may have a point. As it stands you do not. Pointless. I'm sure you are going to suggest draconian licensing terms, blah, blah, blah... The fact remains that the terms exist and, as a professional scientist, HE should have behaved ethically and operated within the confines of the license. End of discussion.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoI will put this even more simply. You are a copyright maximalist. I have a different view where I believe that creators should be paid but not to exclusion of the rest of society and not to the exclusion of the rule of law. This colours both of our views of the facts and we will never agree. We both think that the other is sadly misinformed and a foolish with a politically motivated viewpoint. Goodbye.
- sbuk 11y agoNope, wrong again. You are anti-intellectual property, but that has little bearing on the facts of this story. I believe that if you have made an agreement, you keep it and if your employer has agreements with third parties, that you honour those too. If you, or this indivudual, have moral objections to said agreements, the choices are simple, leave their employ. Taking and using the software without permission or regard for agreements made in legally binding contracts is not an option, and it is not morally or ethically anyware close to doing the right thing. You seem to have lost sight of this because your views are politically motivated. It has nothing to do with your views of how the world should work. Since you are so concerned with the 'the rule of law' (due process doesn't exist in UK law, we have natural justice, but that's by-the-by), the students actions were in direct contravention of established laws and policies. You seem to think that HE is above censure because 'capitalism is bad, man'. Well I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but, it's actually about ethics. This individual has none, and clearly neither do you. QED.