[CS-FSLUG] GNU believers

[Leon Brooks]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:26, Aaron Patrick Lehmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 03:10, Aaron Patrick Lehmann wrote:
>>> I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of others. If
>>> this exploitation is wrong (which I'm not sure it is), then I'm
>>> not the one who did it. Sure, I made it possible, by choosing to
>>> allow derivatives to pick their own liscense, but I didn't force
>>> it.

>> Hokay, now follow it through to its conclusion.

>> Say you leave a box of spraypaint tins on your letterbox, some
>> flouro, some stoveblack. Now along comes a bunch of children, who
>> swiftly egg one another into taking the tins and spraying your
>> neighbours' walls with them. Are you at fault? There's no law (yet)
>> against leaving spray-paint on your letterbox.

> Nope, I didn't do the vandalism.  I might be responsible for
> littering, as I left all these items on my letterbox, which is the
> property of either the government or my apartment complex.

>> Now replace the spraypaint with pistol and box of matching ammo,
>> and re-run the simulation. Who's at fault?

> Well, I imagine in some jurisdictions, a gun liscense implies proper
> policing of the weapon.  I imagine that I would be responsible for
> criminal neglect, at the very least.

So really, the only practical difference is that the second act of 
"littering" might break a law and the first wouldn't?

> Is Fyodor responsible for the harm people might do with Nmap?

Yes. He could argue (with merit) that other software exists to do the 
same thing, and if I was judge that would go a long way to acquitting 
him. But nevertheless he could also have left it for those others to 
write.

>>> Meanwhile, if I had released under a more restrictive liscense,
>>> then I would have to accept resposibility for the liscensing
>>> scheme of derivatives, since I was the one that chose it.

>> You chose it here, too. BSD is a choice.

> But I didn't choose the liscense of derivatives...  Unless I
> misremember the nature of the BSD liscense (which is possible).

You do. The standard BSD licence *requires* attribution.

There is a "BSD licence" which doesn't require attribution, but that's 
really public domain, regardless of what people elect to call it.

> If the BSD liscense does not meet that requirement, I'll find or
> make one that does. 

"I hereby release this software into the public domain. To the extent 
permitted by law, there is no warranty, no redress, no promises to 
consider broken, no specific or implied fitness for purpose. I would 
appreciate attribution in any derivatives, preferably including 
reproduction of this paragraph or as much of it as is compatible with 
any derived licencing in a form accessible to everyday users, but this 
is not a requirement."

>>> It seems analogous
>>> to free will in general.  God has given us, His derivatives, the
>>> ability to do good or evil.  Some will do good, and others evil. 
>>> Is He responsible for the evil-doers' actions?

>> Yes. And so are they. He has done no evil, and yet He is also
>> responsible.

>> However, He has evidently judged the consequences of _not_ letting
>> this charade play itself out as being more harmful than diminishing
>> His immediate responsibility by supernaturally curtailing it.

> Hmm.  So reality as we know it is a charade in the eyes of God... 

No.

> Possibly there are bigger issues here than the relative merits of
> RMS's gift to humanity.

RMS is an excellent illustration of many things Christian, but not 
intentionally. He regards Christians as idiots, as do many Humanists.

The GPL embodies "do unto others". RMS would like to be able to research 
and modify any software he uses, so he releases his own software under 
a licence which requires that this always be possible; he also 
encourages others to do likewise.

The BSD follows a similar principle, but is weaker. The intent is that 
the promulgator would like any software that he is able to change be 
essentially unfettered, and doesn't care whether derivatives are always 
available in future, or that the associated option to research and/or 
modify is preserved.

Cheers; Leon

--
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities;
but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin. -- Hebrews 4:15, KJV