4 ms·

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that abiding by your license terms makes me a jerk just because you chose a stupid license that doesn't actually require

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that abiding by your license terms makes me a jerk just because you chose a stupid license that doesn't actually require what you want it to require.

Dylan16807 4y ago
It's definitely possible to have loopholes where exploiting them makes you a jerk. This situation, not so much. They're making a fully open source version available on purpose.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
It’s weird to me that’s the thing you chose to focus on in my comment, but okay. In the summertime I lock my exterior door(s) when I go to bed, even if I have left the windows open. It’s obviously trivial to enter my home if you’re motivated. I’m aware of the contradiction. Closing and locking the door isn’t impenetrable fortification, but it is a clear expression of my will. Opening the window isn’t an invitation to enter my home, it’s a flaw I’m willing to accept to enjoy cool air after hot summer days. If you come into my home through my window under those circumstances, you’re clearly availing yourself of an obvious loophole in my home security arrangement… but you’re being a jerk nonetheless. People set expectations all the time in all sorts of flawed ways where their expectations might not be met. This is one of them. I agree with the quote in my previous comment: not even a perfect license with no conceivable loophole will prevent someone from exploiting the obvious loophole that a license is a social agreement with its own limited capacity to enforce. Even if you theoretically have bulletproof legal recourse, you have to have legal resources to get it. There’s no license I can imagine which doesn’t have that loophole. But yeah so, “jerk” was hardly the point of my comment. But if that’s the nit you want to pick, violating someone’s express permission to their belongings because you understand their intent but you’ve found an exception in how it was expressed… that does mean you’re being a jerk. You’re welcome to disagree however fundamentally, but you know what their intention is in limiting how they share their resources and you know you’re only entitled to it by disregarding that to take what you want.
int_19h 4y ago
License terms set the legal expectations. Explanations of those terms from the author set the ethical expectations, which are different.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that abiding by your license terms makes me a jerk just because you chose a stupid license that doesn't actually require what you want it to require.

Dylan16807 4y ago

It's definitely possible to have loopholes where exploiting them makes you a jerk. This situation, not so much. They're making a fully open source version available on purpose.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

It’s weird to me that’s the thing you chose to focus on in my comment, but okay. In the summertime I lock my exterior door(s) when I go to bed, even if I have left the windows open. It’s obviously trivial to enter my home if you’re motivated. I’m aware of the contradiction. Closing and locking the door isn’t impenetrable fortification, but it is a clear expression of my will. Opening the window isn’t an invitation to enter my home, it’s a flaw I’m willing to accept to enjoy cool air after hot summer days. If you come into my home through my window under those circumstances, you’re clearly availing yourself of an obvious loophole in my home security arrangement… but you’re being a jerk nonetheless. People set expectations all the time in all sorts of flawed ways where their expectations might not be met. This is one of them. I agree with the quote in my previous comment: not even a perfect license with no conceivable loophole will prevent someone from exploiting the obvious loophole that a license is a social agreement with its own limited capacity to enforce. Even if you theoretically have bulletproof legal recourse, you have to have legal resources to get it. There’s no license I can imagine which doesn’t have that loophole. But yeah so, “jerk” was hardly the point of my comment. But if that’s the nit you want to pick, violating someone’s express permission to their belongings because you understand their intent but you’ve found an exception in how it was expressed… that does mean you’re being a jerk. You’re welcome to disagree however fundamentally, but you know what their intention is in limiting how they share their resources and you know you’re only entitled to it by disregarding that to take what you want.

int_19h 4y ago

License terms set the legal expectations. Explanations of those terms from the author set the ethical expectations, which are different.