GPL and Ethics

[chipbennett]

Once again, intelligent discussion degenerates into talk of "ethics". There are no ethics encapsulated in any copyright law. Nor in the GNU/General Public License. Note the word License - its a copyright license, pure and simple.

Ethics and spirits only come in when the philosophy of the free software movement is confused with copyright licensing. Those who advocate the free software movement will never see the GPL as just a legal license document. Those who aren't prepared to layer a philosophy/belief system/spirit/call-it-whatever over their interpretation of the license will never accept that the GPL should be seen as anything greater than the freedoms it contains.

Ne'er the twain shall meet so there's no point having endless debates over the same old tired dispute. Let's just agree that there are two ways of looking at this, both equally valid depending on whether a person is in the free software camp, or a pragmatist who is only interested in what the license permits.

Chill everyone! Thousands of people have had these arguments - nobody has ever won, so put a line under it all and move on eh?

Ironically, that was the original intent of this thread: to find a way to move on.

At some point, it will have to be settled, or these debates will keep happening. It is foolish to think that the two "sides" (or "camps" as it were) will ever "chill" and just "agree to disagree". So, let's find some mutually agreeable way to move past it.

[Otto]

Bad analogy. Free speech is an intrinsic right, and in no way analogous to rights granted by a copyright holder.

I reject that assertion entirely. There is no such thing as an "intrinsic right". All "rights" are themselves non-existent except insofar as other people grant them to you or which you can take from them by force.

Point to a "right". Hold up your "right to freedom" against the natural world and see if it is respected by the shark trying to eat you. Why do we put people in jail and violate their "right to freedom"?

A "right" is inherently an agreement between you and some other human being. *ALL* rights are this way.

See, your "right to free speech" is only as good as your ability to enforce it against other human beings who would prevent you from speaking out. This is why that right must be "defended". If it was "intrinsic", if the very capability of it was built into the nature of things, then there'd be no need to defend it, as the right could never be taken away.

All rights can be taken away. Therefore there is no such thing as an "intrinsic right".

No, actually, it was quite astute thinking on his part. Where is the gray area on this matter? Either one supports the principles of Free Software, or one does not.

Again, I tell you both that you are wrong and that the world is not black and white. It is not hypocritical to defend the right to free speech while abhorring the content of the message.

I do not like what wpmu does, but I agree that they have the right to do it. Why is this so impossible for you to grasp on any sort of rational and reasonable level? I've stated this several times now, and you continue to reject it, as if such a thing was impossible to do. I tell you that it is not impossible to hold the opinion that I actually currently hold. Why do you not get this?

[chipbennett]

I reject that assertion entirely. There is no such thing as an "intrinsic right". All "rights" are themselves non-existent except insofar as other people grant them to you or which you can take from them by force.

Point to a "right". Hold up your "right to freedom" against the natural world and see if it is respected by the shark trying to eat you. Why do we put people in jail and violate their "right to freedom"?

A "right" is inherently an agreement between you and some other human being. *ALL* rights are this way.

See, your "right to free speech" is only as good as your ability to enforce it against other human beings who would prevent you from speaking out. This is why that right must be "defended". If it was "intrinsic", if the very capability of it was built into the nature of things, then there'd be no need to defend it, as the right could never be taken away.

All rights can be taken away. Therefore there is no such thing as an "intrinsic right".

"And we hold these truths to be self-evident: that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And that's as far as I'll argue that point, as it flirts with the line of religion/politics. Suffice it to say, rights come from the entity with the authority to grant them. The rights granted in GPL (or any other copyright license) do not rise to the level of basic human rights. Thus, the "right of free speech" analogy stretches to the point of breaking, and is therefore not applicable.

Again, I tell you both that you are wrong and that the world is not black and white. It is not hypocritical to defend the right to free speech while abhorring the content of the message.

I do not like what wpmu does, but I agree that they have the right to do it. Why is this so impossible for you to grasp on any sort of rational and reasonable level? I've stated this several times now, and you continue to reject it, as if such a thing was impossible to do. I tell you that it is not impossible to hold the opinion that I actually currently hold. Why do you not get this?

So, I asked three times in my last post: can you explain, exactly and in detail, that which you believe is unethical or jerky about the behaivor of wpmu.org? Is it solely that they have put up a subscription paywall around GPL code, or is it something else/more?

I believe we may not be arguing on the same page, and would like to rectify that difference.

[Otto]

"And we hold these truths to be self-evident: that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And that's as far as I'll argue that point, as it flirts with the line of religion/politics. Suffice it to say, rights come from the entity with the authority to grant them. The rights granted in GPL (or any other copyright license) do not rise to the level of basic human rights. Thus, the "right of free speech" analogy stretches to the point of breaking, and is therefore not applicable.

I don't believe in a creator, and so I don't see that any one particular right is above any other. Rights are rights. They are all equal. You either have them, or you don't.

So therefore I see that my analogy was absolutely applicable, and I reject your contrary assertion as having no merit. Furthermore, I believe you are dodging the issue with this line of reasoning.

Does having a belief in free speech prevent you from disagreeing with the content of the speech? I say that it does not, and consider my argument proven because of that. It's a matter of right vs. use of the right. I can agree that somebody has the right to do a thing and still believe that they should not do that thing.

So, I asked three times in my last post: can you explain, exactly and in detail, that which you believe is unethical or jerky about the behaivor of wpmu.org? Is it solely that they have put up a subscription paywall around GPL code, or is it something else/more?

I believe we may not be arguing on the same page, and would like to rectify that difference.

I thought this was perfectly clear.

The main thing I do not like about their behavior is that they built a paywall and closed community around their content, when the basis for their closed ecosystem is WordPress, which has a very open community and free content.

Then, when somebody points out how that sort of thing hurts the community (it does), they (and others) get annoyed/upset/whatever about it. That annoys me as well.

The fact that they have the *right* to do what they do doesn't change my opinion that they should not be doing it.

[chipbennett]

I don't believe in a creator, and so I don't see that any one particular right is above any other. Rights are rights. They are all equal. You either have them, or you don't.

So, I gues the world is "black and white", contrary to your previous assertion? (Or does the world only get to be "black and white" when it suits your argument?)

Come on, now. You expect me to believe that you cannot differentiate between basic human rights, and rights granted by a copyright holder? You believe that the right to life is equivalent to the right to distribute a copyrighted work?

Surely, you're not that obtuse.

Basic human rights exist because of the inherent worth of each human person. Such rights are a matter of moral concern.

Rights granted by a copyright holder exist because the copyright holder, as owner of the copyrighted work, has the sole right and authority to give those rights to those to whom he chooses to give them. Such rights are a matter of legal concern.

Moral rights and legal rights are not the same thing.

Trying to conflate the two is nonsense.

Murder is morally wrong, regardless of any laws that are (or are not) in place. Copyright is a legal matter, and only applies in those jurisdictions that have enacted copyright laws. Copyright has no moral implication whatsoever.

So therefore I see that my analogy was absolutely applicable, and I reject your contrary assertion as having no merit. Furthermore, I believe you are dodging the issue with this line of reasoning.

And to the contrary, I believe you are dodging the issue, by making an absurd and specious analogy.

Does having a belief in free speech prevent you from disagreeing with the content of the speech? I say that it does not, and consider my argument proven because of that. It's a matter of right vs. use of the right. I can agree that somebody has the right to do a thing and still believe that they should not do that thing.

Again, the difference is that you don't grant anyone the right to free speech, whereas, on the other hand, you, as a copyright holder, do grant others the rights outlined in your copyright license (in this case, the GPL).

If you don't want others to have - or to exercise - those rights, then you should not have given them those rights.

I thought this was perfectly clear.

The main thing I do not like about their behavior is that they built a paywall and closed community around their content, when the basis for their closed ecosystem is WordPress, which has a very open community and free content.

So, that's it? Really? That's all?

Then, when somebody points out how that sort of thing hurts the community (it does), they (and others) get annoyed/upset/whatever about it. That annoys me as well.

The fact that they have the *right* to do what they do doesn't change my opinion that they should not be doing it.

You - once again - are conflating moral issues with legal issues, in a situation devoid of moral concern. YOU GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DO THAT VERY THING! You are holding others to a moral standard when you have no valid basis to do so.

Thus, your castigation of those who exercise the rights that you granted them - rights that you alone had the right to grant or not to grant - is hypocritical.

If you don't like the absence of moral implication with respect to the GPL, perhaps you should not release code under GPL or be involved with a GPL project.

(Isn't that what so many have told the commercial theme/plugin developers, who complained about having to release their work under GPL? Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

[Otto]

So, I gues the world is "black and white", contrary to your previous assertion? (Or does the world only get to be "black and white" when it suits your argument?)

Rights != the world.

Come on now, there's no need to resort to silly rhetoric.

Come on, now. You expect me to believe that you cannot differentiate between basic human rights, and rights granted by a copyright holder? You believe that the right to life is equivalent to the right to distribute a copyrighted work?

I can differentiate between them, certainly. I simply do not see them as having any functional difference in relation to the argument I put forth.

Certainly I do value them differently, but my argument had nothing to do with how I value my various rights. It had to do with the nature of a right in and of itself, and in that respect, they are equivalent.

The comparison I made is valid in the respect for which it was intended. And you're still not addressing the meat of that comparison, you're just arguing about the relative differences of two different rights in a completely meaningless way.

Trying to conflate the two is nonsense.

Nobody's conflating the two, so please get back to addressing the actual intent of the argument. This nonsense about differences in rights is wholly irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place.

Do you agree or disagree that it is possible to think that the right to free speech is valid and should be upheld even while disagreeing with the content of the actual speech in question?

Then, do you agree or disagree that it is possible to think that the rights granted by a copyright holder are valid and should be upheld even while disagreeing with the specific nature of the use of those rights?

If you have different answers to the above two questions, then why?

I happen to agree with both cases, and see them as analogous to each other. I also happen to think that there is no valid reason to have different answers between these two cases because of that.

Again, the difference is that you don't grant anyone the right to free speech, whereas, on the other hand, you, as a copyright holder, do grant others the rights outlined in your copyright license (in this case, the GPL).

That difference is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Also, I would argue that I do grant free speech to people by not trying to prevent said free speech. I could certainly prevent people from speaking freely, as you'll note many countries and governments do exactly that. Free speech is not a right in many parts of the world.

If you don't want others to have - or to exercise - those rights, then you should not have given them those rights.

No, the rights themselves are important, even if one disagrees with how those rights are used. It is quite possible to use the same exact right in a way that I would agree with, instead of in a way I disagree with.

YOU GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DO THAT VERY THING!

Irrelevant, as the fact that you give somebody the right to do a thing doesn't mean you have to actually like the specific way in which they exercise that right. I feel that giving the right itself to everybody is more important than the possible bad uses to which the right can be put.

I can use a gun to shoot a target or a person. The gun itself is not necessarily bad because of this fact.

You are holding others to a moral standard when you have no valid basis to do so.

Certainly I do. It's called "being human". Human beings judge other human beings. That's one of their primary traits, in point of fact.

Thus, your castigation of those who exercise the rights that you granted them - rights that you alone had the right to grant or not to grant - is hypocritical.

Not at all. Again, one can defend free speech without agreeing with the specific content of the speech. In a similar fashion, I can agree with the GPL without agreeing with a single specific instance to which the rights it grants are used. It's a simple matter of cost vs. benefit. The good outweighs the bad. Eliminating the bad would eliminate too much of the good along with it.

If you don't like the absence of moral implication with respect to the GPL, perhaps you should not release code under GPL or be involved with a GPL project.

I have never once said that I didn't like the absense of moral implication with respect to the GPL, and I would much appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth. That absence of moral implication is in fact why I prefer the GPLv2 over the GPLv3, actually.

When I say that I don't like what somebody is doing, then you need to understand that there is no subtext there. I say exactly what I mean. Nothing more.

[chipbennett]

Rights != the world.

Come on now, there's no need to resort to silly rhetoric.


I can differentiate between them, certainly. I simply do not see them as having any functional difference in relation to the argument I put forth.

Certainly I do value them differently, but my argument had nothing to do with how I value my various rights. It had to do with the nature of a right in and of itself, and in that respect, they are equivalent.

The comparison I made is valid in the respect for which it was intended. And you're still not addressing the meat of that comparison, you're just arguing about the relative differences of two different rights in a completely meaningless way.


Nobody's conflating the two, so please get back to addressing the actual intent of the argument. This nonsense about differences in rights is wholly irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place.

To be clear:

Do you agree or disagree that it is possible to think that the right to free speech is valid and should be upheld even while disagreeing with the content of the actual speech in question?

I agree.

Then, do you agree or disagree that it is possible to think that the rights granted by a copyright holder are valid and should be upheld even while disagreeing with the specific nature of the use of those rights?

I disagree.

If you have different answers to the above two questions, then why?

I've already explained why: because inherent moral rights are different from legal rights.

You are a copyright holder. You and you alone have the authority to grant (or not to grant) legal rights related to use of your copyrighted work.

No man has authority to grant (or to deny) inherent, moral, human rights.

I happen to agree with both cases, and see them as analogous to each other. I also happen to think that there is no valid reason to have different answers between these two cases because of that.

That difference is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Also, I would argue that I do grant free speech to people by not trying to prevent said free speech.

You don't have the power, authority, or ability to grant the right to free speech. Rather, you simply exercise restraint in choosing not to infringe others' right to free speech. Big - huge - difference.

The right to free speech does not originate with you - unlike the legal rights associated with copyright.

On the other hand, you are in complete control of the legal rights granted through your ownership of copyright of a given work.

Thus, it is disingenuous to release a work under a copyright license, and then turn around and castigate someone for exercising the rights explicitly granted in the license under which you released it.

I could certainly prevent people from speaking freely, as you'll note many countries and governments do exactly that. Free speech is not a right in many parts of the world.

Inability to be infringed is not a requirement or definition of a basic, inherent human right. These rights are inherent to all humans. (I believe - as did the framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution) that God endowed humans with such rights. I'm sure you believe differently, and this forum isn't the place for that debate.

Regardless, I will not concede the point that these rights are above the authority of any man to infringe upon another; thus, they are fundamentally different from legal rights such as copyright.

No, the rights themselves are important, even if one disagrees with how those rights are used. It is quite possible to use the same exact right in a way that I would agree with, instead of in a way I disagree with.

Irrelevant, as the fact that you give somebody the right to do a thing doesn't mean you have to actually like the specific way in which they exercise that right. I feel that giving the right itself to everybody is more important than the possible bad uses to which the right can be put.

Fair enough - though the best and most appropriate response of everyone else should be just to ignore your complaints.

I can use a gun to shoot a target or a person. The gun itself is not necessarily bad because of this fact.

Complete non-sequitur. You don't have the authority to give anyone the right to shoot another with a gun. (Aside from police and military) no one is given this right.

Certainly I do. It's called "being human". Human beings judge other human beings. That's one of their primary traits, in point of fact.

"Otto's Whim" is not a meaningful basis, given that it is entirely subjective, and not suitable for objective evaluation of one's actions, by anyone not named "Otto".

Not at all. Again, one can defend free speech without agreeing with the specific content of the speech. In a similar fashion, I can agree with the GPL without agreeing with a single specific instance to which the rights it grants are used. It's a simple matter of cost vs. benefit. The good outweighs the bad. Eliminating the bad would eliminate too much of the good along with it.


I have never once said that I didn't like the absense of moral implication with respect to the GPL, and I would much appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth. That absence of moral implication is in fact why I prefer the GPLv2 over the GPLv3, actually.

When I say that I don't like what somebody is doing, then you need to understand that there is no subtext there. I say exactly what I mean. Nothing more.

And that's all the time I have at the moment.

[Otto]

I've already explained why: because inherent moral rights are different from legal rights.

I deny that any such difference exists.

No man has authority to grant (or to deny) inherent, moral, human rights.

Then please explain why the right to free speech is not universal.

You don't have the power, authority, or ability to grant the right to free speech. Rather, you simply exercise restraint in choosing not to infringe others' right to free speech. Big - huge - difference.

This is quibbling. A right that you cannot exercise is a right that you do not have.

You only have the rights that you can take and enforce. All rights are this way.

The right to free speech does not originate

All rights originate from the same place: force. You only gained the right to free speech because a bunch of people grabbed their guns and shot at a bunch of British folks. This is a simple historical fact.

On the other hand, you are in complete control of the legal rights granted through your ownership of copyright of a given work.

Heh. Copyright is in itself a fiction, created by the people for the purpose of encouraging creative works. You do not own that which you create through some inherent "right". You own it because we, as a people, have agreed to not take created things away from their creators.

Regardless, I will not concede the point that these rights are above the authority of any man to infringe upon another; thus, they are fundamentally different from legal rights such as copyright.

Then we have nothing further to discuss.

You are wrong. Simple as that.

Complete non-sequitur. You don't have the authority to give anyone the right to shoot another with a gun. (Aside from police and military) no one is given this right.

Aside from police and military? So basically, you mean "You don't have the authority, unless you do have the authority..."

Where do you think "authority" comes from anyway? Do you seriously think that the current order of things is the only possible way things can be?

"Otto's Whim" is not a meaningful basis, given that it is entirely subjective, and not suitable for objective evaluation of one's actions, by anyone not named "Otto".

And yet I'm still completely capable of thinking whatever the hell I want.

It's truly amazing that I'm able to so much without any "meaningful basis" for it, isn't it?

I'm sorry sir, but your worldview is simply false to fact and I really don't have time to correct it. All I can really suggest is that you perhaps look into Alfred Korzybski's 1933 work "Science and Sanity - An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian systems and General Semantics" would be a good starting point, I think. It might help clarify some things for you. And no, that's not a joke, I'm dead serious. It's a good read, albeit a bit dense in the subject matter. Still, look up "General Semantics" and give it a good think for a while.

[chipbennett]

I deny that any such difference exists.

For someone who admonishes me to read a book on semantics, you sure don't seem to know how to use a dictionary. You claim that there is no difference between a moral right and a legal right? You are wrong:

–noun 18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please. 19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans. 20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority. 21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong. 22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

The very definition of a right clearly differentiates between moral and legal rights. So, you can deny it all you like. You're still wrong.

Then please explain why the right to free speech is not universal.

The right is universal. All humans have this right. However, some humans choose to exercise their power to infringe this right (and other rights) of other people. Their infringement of this right does not negate its universality; it just makes those who infringe this right, wrong.

This is quibbling. A right that you cannot exercise is a right that you do not have.

You only have the rights that you can take and enforce. All rights are this way.

Nonsense. The very concept of society rests on the notion that the rights of the powerless must be protected and ensured by those with power - that anarchy leads to the powerful infringing upon the rights of the powerless.

All rights originate from the same place: force. You only gained the right to free speech because a bunch of people grabbed their guns and shot at a bunch of British folks. This is a simple historical fact.

On this point we will have to agree to disagree. Force is used to defend one's rights against those who would infringe upon them. The claim to the right originates with the moral standard to which we are all subject.

Heh. Copyright is in itself a fiction, created by the people for the purpose of encouraging creative works. You do not own that which you create through some inherent "right". You own it because we, as a people, have agreed to not take created things away from their creators.

Er, no. Copyright is the epitome of a legal (as opposed to moral) right. You claim no such distinction exists (and I have proven that claim utterly wrong), but you admit that you recognize that distinction, by referring to copyright as a "fiction". "we, as a people, [agreeing] to not take created things away from their creators" is a rather succinct explanation of the legal principle behind copyright.

Thanks for proving my point!

Then we have nothing further to discuss.

Probably so.

You are wrong. Simple as that.

"Wrong": you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep claiming that I'm wrong, and yet you keep failing to prove it.

Aside from police and military? So basically, you mean "You don't have the authority, unless you do have the authority..."

Where do you think "authority" comes from anyway? Do you seriously think that the current order of things is the only possible way things can be?


And yet I'm still completely capable of thinking whatever the hell I want.

And we are perfectly capable of refuting and/or ignoring what you think.

It's truly amazing that I'm able to so much without any "meaningful basis" for it, isn't it?

I'm sorry sir, but your worldview is simply false to fact and I really don't have time to correct it. All I can really suggest is that you perhaps look into Alfred Korzybski's 1933 work "Science and Sanity - An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian systems and General Semantics" would be a good starting point, I think. It might help clarify some things for you. And no, that's not a joke, I'm dead serious. It's a good read, albeit a bit dense in the subject matter. Still, look up "General Semantics" and give it a good think for a while.

Given that your worldview is one in which no differentiation exists between moral and legal rights, I'll keep my own advice on my worldview, thanks.

[MiroslavGlavic]

The right to free speech is not universal........Just because the US has it (not really).

For example in Canada we do NOT have freedom of speech, we have freedom of expression...technically both are different. Also, freedom of speech/expression do have limits and should have limits.........can I go use the N word to african-americans? Of course not.........can you walk in front of the White House on public sidewalk and yell: I have a bomb (technically speaking it is free speech)...Good luck with this one.


ok now to the issue of ethics.....................technically speaking you can grab someone's theme and re-do things.....and release it under a different name as YOUR theme......I personally think you should give credit where credit is due.

whatever theme, based on yogi bear theme (C)........... <---- Copyright should go something like that.

How much do you have to change a theme so it becomes YOUR theme?