4 ms·

I feel like we’re in a loop. Are you saying that making software under MIT or closed source licenses allows unethical behavior in a way that makes creation of t

by akerl_ 5y ago

I feel like we’re in a loop. Are you saying that making software under MIT or closed source licenses allows unethical behavior in a way that makes creation of that software unethical? If so, can you back that up instead of asking rhetorical questions? I write software personally, which I license under the MIT license. I write software professionally, which is closed source. I don’t believe either of those things is inherently unethical. There are obviously examples of any kind of software that are unethical, and there are ways that closed source licenses enable unethical behavior, but I’m not following the expansion of that to the license choice itself.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
MIT licenses enable closed source software that would otherwise have to be open source, is the point.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  “Would otherwise” assumes a default state where the original software was GPL, presumably. But the fact that the MIT license allows for use in closed source software isn’t in dispute. Do you (and the other commenters in this thread) believe that closed source software is unethical? And if so, why? And do you believe that MIT-licensed software is also unethical, because it allows for closed source usage? If so, why?
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    I question whether allowing unethical behavior is, in itself, unethical, when you have the option of not allowing it at all. I didn't mention software licenses anywhere in the question. To use a situation common these days, knowing people wearing masks are less likely to pass COVID to others wearing masks, is it ethical to have a restaurant that allows clients not to wear masks? Is it ethical to operate a whore house that doesn't mandate regular AIDS tests?
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      This is a thread about software licensing. If you’re looking to have a theoretical debate about whether in general unethical behavior is unethical to support, I guess that’s a fun debate, but it’s not really relevant to this post or comment tree.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        If it is unethical to support unethical behavior in a general context, why would it be different within the narrow contexts of software licensing?
        akerl_ 5y ago
        I’ll copy my questions from above: Do you (and the other commenters in this thread) believe that closed source software is unethical? And if so, why? And do you believe that MIT-licensed software is also unethical, because it allows for closed source usage? If so, why? You just keep repeating that it’s unethical to support unethical things. Since that’s amazingly general and you’re commenting on a thread about software licensing, I assumed you were attempting to comment on the ethics of closed source and/or MIT licensed things. If you don’t think those things are unethical, just repeating overarching premises about ethics seems irrelevant. If you do think the things being discussed here are unethical, it would make for a much more engaging conversation if you’d say so and elaborate on why, vs just driving circles around the discussion repeating the kind of slogan I’d read on a picket sign at a philosophers march.

by akerl_ 5y ago

wizzwizz4 5y ago

MIT licenses enable closed source software that would otherwise have to be open source, is the point.

akerl_ 5y ago
“Would otherwise” assumes a default state where the original software was GPL, presumably. But the fact that the MIT license allows for use in closed source software isn’t in dispute. Do you (and the other commenters in this thread) believe that closed source software is unethical? And if so, why? And do you believe that MIT-licensed software is also unethical, because it allows for closed source usage? If so, why?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  I question whether allowing unethical behavior is, in itself, unethical, when you have the option of not allowing it at all. I didn't mention software licenses anywhere in the question. To use a situation common these days, knowing people wearing masks are less likely to pass COVID to others wearing masks, is it ethical to have a restaurant that allows clients not to wear masks? Is it ethical to operate a whore house that doesn't mandate regular AIDS tests?
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    This is a thread about software licensing. If you’re looking to have a theoretical debate about whether in general unethical behavior is unethical to support, I guess that’s a fun debate, but it’s not really relevant to this post or comment tree.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      If it is unethical to support unethical behavior in a general context, why would it be different within the narrow contexts of software licensing?
      - akerl_ 5y ago
        I’ll copy my questions from above: Do you (and the other commenters in this thread) believe that closed source software is unethical? And if so, why? And do you believe that MIT-licensed software is also unethical, because it allows for closed source usage? If so, why? You just keep repeating that it’s unethical to support unethical things. Since that’s amazingly general and you’re commenting on a thread about software licensing, I assumed you were attempting to comment on the ethics of closed source and/or MIT licensed things. If you don’t think those things are unethical, just repeating overarching premises about ethics seems irrelevant. If you do think the things being discussed here are unethical, it would make for a much more engaging conversation if you’d say so and elaborate on why, vs just driving circles around the discussion repeating the kind of slogan I’d read on a picket sign at a philosophers march.