5 ms·

Written agreements like contracts and licenses can never exhaust the possibility space and so its not possible to list every type of bad behavior. It may not be

Written agreements like contracts and licenses can never exhaust the possibility space and so its not possible to list every type of bad behavior. It may not be practical for some users to give credit to the original writer so the originator doesn't require it in the license, this doesn't mean its ok for someone to pass off someone else's work as their own. from tfa: > This leads to an important distinction that I draw but that seems routinely ignored among denizens of the web. Namely, that laws and ethics are not one in the same. One can be opposed to using a law to inhibit some undesirable behavior while simultaneously finding that behavior unethical.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
Laws applying generally differ from your licensing choices in that laws affect everyone, and your license only apply to those who explicitly want to obey them. Therefore, laws will inevitably end up not matching somoene's ethics, while it's entirely up to you whether you allow others to do things you consider unethical with your software. So if you do indeed not forbid others from using your software in a way you don't like, you don't have anything to complain about: it was your choice. * * * Separately, I'm not certain about the distinction between law and morality. Law is a set of rules of what things shall and shall not be done, being a code of moral rules in this sense. This is also what we use it for: we as societies generally use law to express our ethical stance on murder and violence, for example, but also theft, the permission to take drugs and drink alcohol, to go out at night. In this case, it's beneficial to my conscience if the law is a codification of my own morality. But the author claims that they make a distinction: there are ethical rules that should not be codified. Wwere does the line go? I can understand justifying that position by saying that people with different moral codes would riot, making it impractical to forbid what I see as immoral. I ask this question because that was not explained, and is the justification for preferring to abolish copyright rather than instill the 4 rules, even though the author seems to agree with both, and both are just as impractical to implement at this time (would make people riot).
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > So if you do indeed not forbid others from using your software in a way you don't like, you don't have anything to complain about: it was your choice. I’m not sure you grasp my point; its not possible to list all the things you don’t want to happen. In no way does someone waive their right to “be upset” by neglecting to mention all the things they don’t like in a license. > Separately, I'm not certain about the distinction between law and morality. Law is a set of rules of what things shall and shall not be done, being a code of moral rules in this sense. This is also what we use it for: we as societies generally use law to express our ethical stance on murder and violence, for example, but also theft, the permission to take drugs and drink alcohol, to go out at night. This is not really true, law is a means of resolving and preventing disputes by codifying acts and their consequences so as to allow social coordination. > Wwere does the line go? I can understand justifying that position by saying that people with different moral codes would riot, making it impractical to forbid what I see as immoral. The case is that people with different moral codes would seek to impose their contradictory codes upon each other so we seek the minimum viable ruleset that allows us to live in peace and leave questions of morality up to the individual and their community. > I ask this question because that was not explained, and is the justification for preferring to abolish copyright rather than instill the 4 rules, even though the author seems to agree with both, and both are just as impractical to implement at this time (would make people riot). The author explains his opposition is both moral and practical in nature. Moral because ideas are not scarce/rivalrous and so not properly considered property; and practical because law as an instrument is wielded by interested parties who have disproportionate power to realize those interests using the machinery of social order.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    > This is not really true, law is a means of resolving and preventing disputes by codifying acts and their consequences so as to allow social coordination. But it is true: consequences must be related to what is good/allowed and what isn't. So law is a moral code, but not only that. > we seek the minimum viable ruleset that allows us to live in peace and leave questions of morality up to the individual That's where my confusion stems from: neither abolishing copyright is that, nor are the 4 rules of Free Software. Since the author finds both acceptable, why favor one over the other? > Moral because ideas are not scarce/rivalrous and so not properly considered property Maybe I'm missing something, but neither the four freedoms, nor abolishing copyright depend on treating software as property. > because law as an instrument is wielded by interested parties who have disproportionate power I'm also not sure if I get the reference. The author opposes copyleft on the grounds that it's based on copyright, which they oppose to, but copyleft as a legal trick would no longer be needed with the four freedoms being law. Maybe to clarify my confusion, this fragment: > I would support the right of persons to publish binary programs while making its source code obfuscated or impossible to attain. This is a clear violation of the four essential freedoms as described by the Free Software Foundation. Yet, it would be legal---but perhaps not ethical---to do it in a world in which intellectual property does not exist. The author is clearly in moral agreement in the four freedoms, but advocates allowing people to break them in the ideal world. Since the ideal world is just as impractical in terms of minimum viable rule set, why not simply use the four freedoms as the moral base?
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
+1. It's important to realize that copyright violation and plagiarism are two completely different concepts. A copyright violation is the non-fair, unauthorized use or distribution of copyright works, which is strictly, formally defined in terms of laws and licenses. On the other hand, plagiarism is a concept from academic ethics, namely, failing to give credit where credit is due. Often, one doesn't have any legal requirement to give acknowledgement in many circumstances, and to what extent an acknowledgement should be given is not always formally defined, it can be personal and subjective. However, overall, it's considered as an act of honesty and politeness. For example, using a result without credit can sometimes be considered acceptable if it's well-known and has a low contextual importance. On the other hand, creating a derivative work based on previous experimental data or literary works without acknowledging its source is considered dishonest, even if it's totally legal to do so when the work itself is published under CC-0. > This commonly comes up in discussions where folks release software under a license that allows some bad behavior (like plagiarism) and then complain when that plagiarism happens. People inevitably respond with some low brow blame-the-victim nonsense, "well, that's what you get for using a license that allows it." Statements like these reflect the confusion between license requirements and ethics. Yes, it's completely legal to use an existing FOSS work without explicit acknowledgements. And sometimes, it may even be considered by people/authors as totally reasonable (one certainly doesn't expect every single program in existence to acknowledge GCC or clang, unless you are writing a complier based on the ideas found in them). However, when a company releases a product that is substantially based on a FOSS project (or its idea) legally without giving explicit credit, it's still all but fair for its authors to express their dissatisfaction on the lack of acknowledgement. Sure, the company has the legal right to do so, and not everyone will find that it's problematic. Regardless, it's also certain that it will be criticized by many members of the public as being unfriendly to developers, and I think the existence of such public criticisms is not less reasonable than the act of using something without acknowledgement (read: use without acknowledgement in the way you want, and get criticized in the way we expect). Giving credit is not fully a legal matter, and I don't think attempting to codify all the requirements of acknowledgement in a bunch of software license is the right way to go. What we need is probably an informal code of conduct on attribution in the software industry.
- 6y ago

rhn_mk1 6y ago

Laws applying generally differ from your licensing choices in that laws affect everyone, and your license only apply to those who explicitly want to obey them. Therefore, laws will inevitably end up not matching somoene's ethics, while it's entirely up to you whether you allow others to do things you consider unethical with your software. So if you do indeed not forbid others from using your software in a way you don't like, you don't have anything to complain about: it was your choice. * * * Separately, I'm not certain about the distinction between law and morality. Law is a set of rules of what things shall and shall not be done, being a code of moral rules in this sense. This is also what we use it for: we as societies generally use law to express our ethical stance on murder and violence, for example, but also theft, the permission to take drugs and drink alcohol, to go out at night. In this case, it's beneficial to my conscience if the law is a codification of my own morality. But the author claims that they make a distinction: there are ethical rules that should not be codified. Wwere does the line go? I can understand justifying that position by saying that people with different moral codes would riot, making it impractical to forbid what I see as immoral. I ask this question because that was not explained, and is the justification for preferring to abolish copyright rather than instill the 4 rules, even though the author seems to agree with both, and both are just as impractical to implement at this time (would make people riot).

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> So if you do indeed not forbid others from using your software in a way you don't like, you don't have anything to complain about: it was your choice. I’m not sure you grasp my point; its not possible to list all the things you don’t want to happen. In no way does someone waive their right to “be upset” by neglecting to mention all the things they don’t like in a license. > Separately, I'm not certain about the distinction between law and morality. Law is a set of rules of what things shall and shall not be done, being a code of moral rules in this sense. This is also what we use it for: we as societies generally use law to express our ethical stance on murder and violence, for example, but also theft, the permission to take drugs and drink alcohol, to go out at night. This is not really true, law is a means of resolving and preventing disputes by codifying acts and their consequences so as to allow social coordination. > Wwere does the line go? I can understand justifying that position by saying that people with different moral codes would riot, making it impractical to forbid what I see as immoral. The case is that people with different moral codes would seek to impose their contradictory codes upon each other so we seek the minimum viable ruleset that allows us to live in peace and leave questions of morality up to the individual and their community. > I ask this question because that was not explained, and is the justification for preferring to abolish copyright rather than instill the 4 rules, even though the author seems to agree with both, and both are just as impractical to implement at this time (would make people riot). The author explains his opposition is both moral and practical in nature. Moral because ideas are not scarce/rivalrous and so not properly considered property; and practical because law as an instrument is wielded by interested parties who have disproportionate power to realize those interests using the machinery of social order.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  > This is not really true, law is a means of resolving and preventing disputes by codifying acts and their consequences so as to allow social coordination. But it is true: consequences must be related to what is good/allowed and what isn't. So law is a moral code, but not only that. > we seek the minimum viable ruleset that allows us to live in peace and leave questions of morality up to the individual That's where my confusion stems from: neither abolishing copyright is that, nor are the 4 rules of Free Software. Since the author finds both acceptable, why favor one over the other? > Moral because ideas are not scarce/rivalrous and so not properly considered property Maybe I'm missing something, but neither the four freedoms, nor abolishing copyright depend on treating software as property. > because law as an instrument is wielded by interested parties who have disproportionate power I'm also not sure if I get the reference. The author opposes copyleft on the grounds that it's based on copyright, which they oppose to, but copyleft as a legal trick would no longer be needed with the four freedoms being law. Maybe to clarify my confusion, this fragment: > I would support the right of persons to publish binary programs while making its source code obfuscated or impossible to attain. This is a clear violation of the four essential freedoms as described by the Free Software Foundation. Yet, it would be legal---but perhaps not ethical---to do it in a world in which intellectual property does not exist. The author is clearly in moral agreement in the four freedoms, but advocates allowing people to break them in the ideal world. Since the ideal world is just as impractical in terms of minimum viable rule set, why not simply use the four freedoms as the moral base?

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

+1. It's important to realize that copyright violation and plagiarism are two completely different concepts. A copyright violation is the non-fair, unauthorized use or distribution of copyright works, which is strictly, formally defined in terms of laws and licenses. On the other hand, plagiarism is a concept from academic ethics, namely, failing to give credit where credit is due. Often, one doesn't have any legal requirement to give acknowledgement in many circumstances, and to what extent an acknowledgement should be given is not always formally defined, it can be personal and subjective. However, overall, it's considered as an act of honesty and politeness. For example, using a result without credit can sometimes be considered acceptable if it's well-known and has a low contextual importance. On the other hand, creating a derivative work based on previous experimental data or literary works without acknowledging its source is considered dishonest, even if it's totally legal to do so when the work itself is published under CC-0. > This commonly comes up in discussions where folks release software under a license that allows some bad behavior (like plagiarism) and then complain when that plagiarism happens. People inevitably respond with some low brow blame-the-victim nonsense, "well, that's what you get for using a license that allows it." Statements like these reflect the confusion between license requirements and ethics. Yes, it's completely legal to use an existing FOSS work without explicit acknowledgements. And sometimes, it may even be considered by people/authors as totally reasonable (one certainly doesn't expect every single program in existence to acknowledge GCC or clang, unless you are writing a complier based on the ideas found in them). However, when a company releases a product that is substantially based on a FOSS project (or its idea) legally without giving explicit credit, it's still all but fair for its authors to express their dissatisfaction on the lack of acknowledgement. Sure, the company has the legal right to do so, and not everyone will find that it's problematic. Regardless, it's also certain that it will be criticized by many members of the public as being unfriendly to developers, and I think the existence of such public criticisms is not less reasonable than the act of using something without acknowledgement (read: use without acknowledgement in the way you want, and get criticized in the way we expect). Giving credit is not fully a legal matter, and I don't think attempting to codify all the requirements of acknowledgement in a bunch of software license is the right way to go. What we need is probably an informal code of conduct on attribution in the software industry.

6y ago