Back

@tvn @aral @Framasoft congratulations, you discovered equivalence and algebra?

@trwnh @aral @Framasoft yes, at least it’s something, since the differences between OS and FS remain undiscovered with only that.

@jeff @Framasoft Just ethics.

@rook @Framasoft @angristan Nope, just ethics.

@aral @Framasoft @angristan as defined by the FSF, and only the FSF, forever and ever, amen.

No thanks, I'd rather die than give another entity moral authority over me.

@rook @Framasoft @angristan FSF doesn’t have a patent on ethics. Open source, however, is notable for having come into existence as an allergic reaction to the ethics and morality in free software by businesses that did not want ethics or morality to impede their ability to fence off the commons, adopt free as in free labour, and implement open as privatisation.

@aral @Framasoft @angristan That's a very different argument. The way you put it makes it out as though anyone using OSS in an "ethical" way is "Free/Libre" which are FSF terms. That's a relation which is absolutely false, unless you define "ethics" by use of the GPL. That's not an ethical stance, it's a moral one, and it's extreme.

There is no need for any of this doublespeak. You're shutting out the very people you need to have the conversation with.

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan Do you call out doublespeek whenever someone tries to define what they mean by "ethics"?

Also he's probably incorporating The Four Freedoms in his definition of ethics, not the GPL.

@alcinnz @aral @Framasoft @angristan

When redefining ethics to to mean FSF dogma, doublespeak is an extremely polite term.

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan I was making a point about the vagueness of the term "ethics". It tends to have a different definition for each individual.

Also RMS may sound very dogmatic, but if you actually listen to him he's actually quite reasonable.

@alcinnz @aral @Framasoft @angristan

Then you should have said that. The way you put it is dishonest and insulting.

Regardless of what you think of RMS, or what I think of RMS, allowing him or FSF to dictate what's acceptable in absolute is not a valid ethical position.

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan Aaah, caught out trying to be succinct!

I will agree that we need to accept other definitions of ethics, and not insist others adopt ours. At most suggest.

@alcinnz @aral @Framasoft @angristan

The way I see it, there is one definition of "ethics" as a term, importantly: by which the *content* of one person's ethic might differ from that of another.

My objection with the original post is that it implies the ONLY acceptable content (re: software) is the FSF, by way of their Free/Libre terminology, which is in direct contradiction with that definition. That could be "an" ethic, but not absolutely not "ethics."

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan Than I think we both were caught out trying to be concise.

@gemlog

@aral @Framasoft

What is wrong with GPL ? Only proprietary SW have a problem with GPL, isn't it?

@jeko @aral @Framasoft I have no problem with the gpl.