3 ms·

So the first and the very negative answer is that I absolutely despise the people who try to push the GPL as being about "ethics". I think that's absolute bulls

by dkarl 16y ago

So the first and the very negative answer is that I absolutely despise the people who try to push the GPL as being about "ethics". I think that's absolute bullshit. Why? Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head. Good lord, so we're supposed to take an interest in ethics privately but never speak about it publicly? Almost everything I believe about ethics comes from processing other people's ethical ideas, and the same is true for Linus, I'm sure. I personally don't think less of anybody who uses an MIT or BSD license instead of the GPL, but I do think less of Linus for declaring ethics to be an unsuitable topic for public conversation, simply because he can't stand to hear people disagree with him or disapprove of him. Not to mention he is a brazen hypocrite. He broadcasts his opinions about other people's behavior, calls them dickheads, and says he despises them, because it's inappropriate for them to talk about how other people should behave. Sorry, Linus, it's hard to be more of a sanctimonious dickhead than when you're calling someone else a sanctimonious dickhead.

burgerbrain 16y ago
Has Linus ever claimed to not be a dickhead? Quite the opposite I believe.... Gotta say though, I do agree with his point. People who cram their ethical systems down other peoples throats are dickheads. Am I automatically a dickhead myself for calling people out on this? So be it, I can live with being a dickhead to that degree.
- dkarl 16y ago
  The perception of "cramming" is Linus's problem. The concrete complaint he makes (before his blanket statement that ethics should never be discussed publicly) is that people "push" the GPL as being "about 'ethics.'" Well, that is nothing about Linus, it is about the GPL, so he can't even claim it's personal. Plus, it's a reasonable opinion to have, especially since the person wrote the GPL did so to promote certain ethical considerations. It is Linus's fault that he is so sensitive that he can't abide somebody having an opinion that the GPL has an ethical side to it. Then he goes on to say, "I really want to point out that it's not that the license is somehow ethical per se." So it's okay for him to have and express an opinion on that question. The hypocrisy is really thick there. And here's the question that prompted that response: "Do you agree that there is an ethical content in the GPL?" Hardly a pushy question, and the interviewer practically apologizes before he asks the question. So no, there is no cramming, there is just a person who is extremely sensitive on an issue and responds to a polite question with an insulting rant about civility. There is nothing cool about that. He isn't dropping his brilliant technical judgment on an unsuspecting noob who will be better for it in the long run. It's just unpleasant behavior to no useful end.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion (with regards to the GPL even!) and I'm sure that if you honestly look at yourself, you'll find you are too. All this said, he's literally just saying that people who cram the GPL onto other people because it's more "ethical" are dickheads. As far as I can tell, he's not doing that himself, and he's not attempting to imply that the questioner was doing it either. Rather, he just isn't kidding himself, and recognizes that the reason the question is being asked is because there are certain "high profile" people who have made it a full time hobby to do such cramming. He wishes to make it clear that his reasons for using the GPL are purely pragmatic, not quasi-religious. To be honest, at this point it really just seems like you are attempting to be contrarian.
    - dkarl 16y ago
      Not, not really, I just accept that there are people out there expressing opinions about how I should live and that there's no way for me to shut them up. "How many times do I have to express my opinion before those dickheads stop expressing theirs?" is a natural feeling when a controversy drags on longer than one feels it should, but it is counterproductive to express that feeling as if it were an argument. (Also, personally, I don't think the free software ethic is something that ought to go away, even if I don't follow it myself.) There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems. Most controversies include some number of unpleasant people. If we let that affect how we respond to polite questions from polite people, we become part of the problem. If you said something to me about the U.S. occupation in Iraq, would it be constructive for me to respond by complaining about the conduct of various people who have expressed similar opinions?

by dkarl 16y ago

burgerbrain 16y ago

Has Linus ever claimed to not be a dickhead? Quite the opposite I believe.... Gotta say though, I do agree with his point. People who cram their ethical systems down other peoples throats are dickheads. Am I automatically a dickhead myself for calling people out on this? So be it, I can live with being a dickhead to that degree.

dkarl 16y ago
The perception of "cramming" is Linus's problem. The concrete complaint he makes (before his blanket statement that ethics should never be discussed publicly) is that people "push" the GPL as being "about 'ethics.'" Well, that is nothing about Linus, it is about the GPL, so he can't even claim it's personal. Plus, it's a reasonable opinion to have, especially since the person wrote the GPL did so to promote certain ethical considerations. It is Linus's fault that he is so sensitive that he can't abide somebody having an opinion that the GPL has an ethical side to it. Then he goes on to say, "I really want to point out that it's not that the license is somehow ethical per se." So it's okay for him to have and express an opinion on that question. The hypocrisy is really thick there. And here's the question that prompted that response: "Do you agree that there is an ethical content in the GPL?" Hardly a pushy question, and the interviewer practically apologizes before he asks the question. So no, there is no cramming, there is just a person who is extremely sensitive on an issue and responds to a polite question with an insulting rant about civility. There is nothing cool about that. He isn't dropping his brilliant technical judgment on an unsuspecting noob who will be better for it in the long run. It's just unpleasant behavior to no useful end.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion (with regards to the GPL even!) and I'm sure that if you honestly look at yourself, you'll find you are too. All this said, he's literally just saying that people who cram the GPL onto other people because it's more "ethical" are dickheads. As far as I can tell, he's not doing that himself, and he's not attempting to imply that the questioner was doing it either. Rather, he just isn't kidding himself, and recognizes that the reason the question is being asked is because there are certain "high profile" people who have made it a full time hobby to do such cramming. He wishes to make it clear that his reasons for using the GPL are purely pragmatic, not quasi-religious. To be honest, at this point it really just seems like you are attempting to be contrarian.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    Not, not really, I just accept that there are people out there expressing opinions about how I should live and that there's no way for me to shut them up. "How many times do I have to express my opinion before those dickheads stop expressing theirs?" is a natural feeling when a controversy drags on longer than one feels it should, but it is counterproductive to express that feeling as if it were an argument. (Also, personally, I don't think the free software ethic is something that ought to go away, even if I don't follow it myself.) There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems. Most controversies include some number of unpleasant people. If we let that affect how we respond to polite questions from polite people, we become part of the problem. If you said something to me about the U.S. occupation in Iraq, would it be constructive for me to respond by complaining about the conduct of various people who have expressed similar opinions?