3 ms·

So basically this article makes a Kant-ian argument that we need rules to actually get freedom. I think that there's nothing wrong with that argument, but the w

So basically this article makes a Kant-ian argument that we need rules to actually get freedom. I think that there's nothing wrong with that argument, but the whole story to make open source about freedom is not the right way at all. I think if you release source code for other people to use is more akin to a present you make for the whole society of the world, which may be able to advance itself with it. Presents shouldn't be bound to conditions. We certainly need rules for our societies, but they need to be part of the law, not part of some conditions of presents. That's why I release the stuff I write under public domain/CC0.

belorn 10y ago
When individuals given donations to disasters funds and hospitals, is it not reasonable that it has the condition that the organizer don't pocket the money themselves? One obvious condition to me is that the money should end up as advertised, and if not, I would claim fraud and hope that the justice system handles it. Other forms of presents are public services "gifted" by the government to its citizens, like parks. A condition to that gift is that people don't vandalize the park, destroying it for everyone. Shouldn't presents like those should be bound to conditions, both informal and official. I find that most gifts are given under an implicit or explicit condition, and it seems the norm rather than the exception.
- utternerd 10y ago
  It's not a "present" if you're forced to pay for it via coercion as we do when it comes to a public park. It is however a "present" when one spends their time and energy making, and then giving away something to others as was the example. Very different scenarios; one is a gift, one is coerced.