4 ms·

You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal. No, I've compared people o

You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal. No, I've compared people offering products under a set of conditions and then people breaking those conditions to use those products. JB offered his products under the conditions that people pay him for the privilege and GPL authors offer their products under the condition that people abide by the GPL. Why do we get to ignore JB's conditions and yet have to abide by the GPL?

tome 16y ago
OK then: Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both released under a set of conditions. The point is you haven't taken in to account the relative validity of the conditions. You can't equate them simply because they are "conditions". The conditions of the GPL are (put very simply) "you must share". The conditions of JB's work are (put very simply) "you must not share". You don't get to compare instances of infringing each of those rules unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. If you're going to say "If you do X don't be pissed if I do Y" then the onus is on you to show that X and Y are equivalent.
- cschwarm 16y ago
  > ...unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. You assume these have no equivalent ethical validity. But you fail to provide a rationale for your assumption. So, why should anyone accept your premise? In fact, both are equally valid: If you expect others to keep their promise to share something, you should keep your promise to share something, too. If you expect others to keep their promise NOT to share something, you should keep your promise NOT to share something, too. Both are derived from the Golden Rule and are thus equally valid. Consequently, if you feel entitled to break your promise NOT to share something, why should anyone else respect their promise to share something?

tome 16y ago

OK then: Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both released under a set of conditions. The point is you haven't taken in to account the relative validity of the conditions. You can't equate them simply because they are "conditions". The conditions of the GPL are (put very simply) "you must share". The conditions of JB's work are (put very simply) "you must not share". You don't get to compare instances of infringing each of those rules unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. If you're going to say "If you do X don't be pissed if I do Y" then the onus is on you to show that X and Y are equivalent.

cschwarm 16y ago
> ...unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. You assume these have no equivalent ethical validity. But you fail to provide a rationale for your assumption. So, why should anyone accept your premise? In fact, both are equally valid: If you expect others to keep their promise to share something, you should keep your promise to share something, too. If you expect others to keep their promise NOT to share something, you should keep your promise NOT to share something, too. Both are derived from the Golden Rule and are thus equally valid. Consequently, if you feel entitled to break your promise NOT to share something, why should anyone else respect their promise to share something?