4 ms·

>it wouldn't be a free country Arguing that the freedom to restrictively licensing your software is more freedom than using GPL because it requires unrestricte

by thatcat 11y ago

>it wouldn't be a free country Arguing that the freedom to restrictively licensing your software is more freedom than using GPL because it requires unrestricted future access is analogous to arguing that one should be tolerant of intolerance because that is the more tolerant action.

ralmidani 11y ago
Exactly. Being pro-freedom does not mean allowing someone to take away the freedoms of others.
meric 11y ago
Yes and being intolerant of intolerance is to become intolerant ourselves. I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant, but I tolerate them. It's analogous to saying people who murder murderers are murderers. Which is true.
- JadeNB 11y ago
  > I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant Wait, seriously? So, if someone says "I don't want my kids ever to meet gay people", and I say "I don't want my kids ever to meet that guy", then you feel that I'm more in the wrong?
  - meric 11y ago
    Yes. The first person is showing prejudice with an exclusionary attitude. The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it. The first person is prejudiced against gays based on his own experience growing up as well as his ignorance. The first person is being who they are. The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. (Of course if the second person is the gay person the first person is prejudiced against, then I would sympathise with them instead because they was the target of the first person's prejudice). And to think you're good when you're judging people with the same attitude to align with society's prevailing morals is distasteful to me. But I understand it and I will still let my kids meet you. It's human nature to follow the crowd.
    - thatcat 11y ago
      >The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it The first person is ignorant, the second person is annoyed with ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as being in a minority group. There's no human right to remain ignorant.
      - meric 11y ago
        If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them. Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
        thatcat 11y ago
        The which is freeer software decision and whether to tolerate the intolerant or not are both a paradox. You can't know whether you're enabling a net increase in freedom/tolerance or decreasing it because you're doing both and won't know the result until its too late. Either decision, like choosing any value, requires a moral compromise based on the realities of the situation.
        meric 11y ago
        I agree with this statement - I don't think they're analogous because each situation has a different reality. It's like saying "As a submarine commander, you should be able to command this space shuttle because flying a shuttle is just like commanding a submarine - both vehicles are surrounded by a hostile environment." But of course we know the two environments are not analogous like that - they have different realities.
        thatcat 11y ago
        Commercial software licenses and intolerance are both a result of the self interest of the individual in society and are a defensive measure that protects individual values from community over reach. GPL and enforcing-tolerance are based on community values that protect a shared interest against the interests of individuals.

by thatcat 11y ago

ralmidani 11y ago

Exactly. Being pro-freedom does not mean allowing someone to take away the freedoms of others.

meric 11y ago

Yes and being intolerant of intolerance is to become intolerant ourselves. I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant, but I tolerate them. It's analogous to saying people who murder murderers are murderers. Which is true.

JadeNB 11y ago
> I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant Wait, seriously? So, if someone says "I don't want my kids ever to meet gay people", and I say "I don't want my kids ever to meet that guy", then you feel that I'm more in the wrong?
- meric 11y ago
  Yes. The first person is showing prejudice with an exclusionary attitude. The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it. The first person is prejudiced against gays based on his own experience growing up as well as his ignorance. The first person is being who they are. The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. (Of course if the second person is the gay person the first person is prejudiced against, then I would sympathise with them instead because they was the target of the first person's prejudice). And to think you're good when you're judging people with the same attitude to align with society's prevailing morals is distasteful to me. But I understand it and I will still let my kids meet you. It's human nature to follow the crowd.
  - thatcat 11y ago
    >The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it The first person is ignorant, the second person is annoyed with ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as being in a minority group. There's no human right to remain ignorant.
    - meric 11y ago
      If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them. Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
      - thatcat 11y ago
        The which is freeer software decision and whether to tolerate the intolerant or not are both a paradox. You can't know whether you're enabling a net increase in freedom/tolerance or decreasing it because you're doing both and won't know the result until its too late. Either decision, like choosing any value, requires a moral compromise based on the realities of the situation.
        meric 11y ago
        I agree with this statement - I don't think they're analogous because each situation has a different reality. It's like saying "As a submarine commander, you should be able to command this space shuttle because flying a shuttle is just like commanding a submarine - both vehicles are surrounded by a hostile environment." But of course we know the two environments are not analogous like that - they have different realities.
        thatcat 11y ago
        Commercial software licenses and intolerance are both a result of the self interest of the individual in society and are a defensive measure that protects individual values from community over reach. GPL and enforcing-tolerance are based on community values that protect a shared interest against the interests of individuals.