3 ms·

It being basic human decency is actually an argument against the GPL. One of the worst things you can do is make basic human decency a legal obligation. If ever

It being basic human decency is actually an argument against the GPL. One of the worst things you can do is make basic human decency a legal obligation. If every time someone did something nice for me, I was worried about now having a legal obligation to do something, the world would be a much worse place. Basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal obligations. Let karma decide about basic human decency, not the courts.

nsgi 11y ago
On the other hand, most crimes also go against basic human decency, so something being basic human decency is not always an argument against it being a legal obligation.
belorn 11y ago
That is a common argument on why copyright should not exist. Every time someone do something nice and want to share their favorite song or movie to me, I am told by society that they are doing something wrong and I have a legal obligation to decline. Its crazy, basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal limitations. The courts should not be involved.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  This is not an analogous situation. With open source or basic human decency, I am sharing something that I have a right to (either code I created, or my time/energy). It is not basic human decency for me to give your money away without your consent to someone else.
  - belorn 11y ago
    If you consider that copyright is equal to someones money, you should really respect their choice in what situation they are consenting to have it getting shared! But why did you say that the world would be a worse place if every time someone did something nice to you, you would have to care about the legal obligation of that act? You either respect that authors has copyright, or you don't. I could never respect someones opinion if they thought that only their copyright is valid.

nsgi 11y ago

On the other hand, most crimes also go against basic human decency, so something being basic human decency is not always an argument against it being a legal obligation.

belorn 11y ago

That is a common argument on why copyright should not exist. Every time someone do something nice and want to share their favorite song or movie to me, I am told by society that they are doing something wrong and I have a legal obligation to decline. Its crazy, basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal limitations. The courts should not be involved.

jbandela1 11y ago
This is not an analogous situation. With open source or basic human decency, I am sharing something that I have a right to (either code I created, or my time/energy). It is not basic human decency for me to give your money away without your consent to someone else.
- belorn 11y ago
  If you consider that copyright is equal to someones money, you should really respect their choice in what situation they are consenting to have it getting shared! But why did you say that the world would be a worse place if every time someone did something nice to you, you would have to care about the legal obligation of that act? You either respect that authors has copyright, or you don't. I could never respect someones opinion if they thought that only their copyright is valid.