On 29 Mar 2003 11:24:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:35:02AM +0000, Tim Phipps wrote: > > > I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING: > > > > === > > Before using this software, please read the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that > > comes with the fvwm distribution. > > === > > In other words, I should soften the wording until it can be safely > ignored without the risk of having a slightly bad conscience? > Sorry, I can not comply to this. The whole idea of an opt-in > ethical use statement is a bad joke.
If you put it in README and not COPYING, it will not sound as a bad joke. > > Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against > > the Iraqi dictatorship. > > I do not understand this. In how far does being British, German, > American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics? If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator. > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:38:34AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > > > I don't like to disappoint you, Dominik, but I don't agree too. > > I can't see myself agreeing with a license that discriminates people > > based on their occupation, ethics or similar. > > > > GNU GPL means free for everyone forever. No exceptions. Personally I am > > not a god to decide who is meritorious to use my software and who is not. > > > > > > * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other > > > > military actions. > > > > > > I see you left out terrorist acts. > > > > One more thing is left out: using chemical, biological and nuclear > > weapons ... [cut political opinions] > > How would you qualify this if not as a military action or an act > of terrorism? Now, if I would start discriminating between types > of actions or weapons the statement would really become political. > Killing millions with nuclear weapons is equally unethical as > putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer. I can't agree. This may be true by your ethics, not by my ethics. (Read: by your ego, not by my ego.) You may only afford to be a humanitarian when you are not directly involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides. > > To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and > > other mafias. What is more ethical, to kill several drug > > traffickers in a skirmish or to let them to break thousands of > > people? It's clear to me. > > Yes, for me too. Both is utterly unethical. A human life is a > human life is a human life. What is a human life? The god's creature, shrine? I am not religious, so this is not my ethics. Does the animal life is as important as the human life? If it is as important, you should fight against killing locusts, midges, cockroach and dosens of others. If it is less important, it is a human despotism. Since I believe that the basis of all ethical beliefs is egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important. Although I would egoistically fight for my own life and the life of my family, I don't see my life as something holy by itself. I believe in evolution. If I die, it is ok as long as the humanity in the whole prospers. Similary about the lives of others. Thinking otherwise is caprisious by my ethics. > > Face it. Ethics, politics, religion always mean ego, nothing more than > > this, everyone chooses what is better for his own safety or for the > > safety of his family, his country, his god, whatever. Nothing special to > > be prood of. > > > > There is no absolute human ethics. Unfortunately. > > But that does not mean that ethics are a private decision. Quite > the opposite, if you accept that people choose ethics too their > liking, you must accept too if terrorists who kill people do it > because they see it as their ethical duty to do so. I fully realize a terrorist has his own ethics. Since our ethics are quite opposite (he wants to kill me in name of his gods), I prefer to fight him and kill him to live myself. > If you do not acknowledge that, ethics becomes pure caprisiousness. > What you say sounds like "killing is wrong, except when I think it it > right". It does not only sounds like this, it is exactly this. Everyone thinks killing is wrong (because she does not like to be killed), except when she thinks it is right (because she would be killed otherwise). I have no any ethical problem to realize this. The entire life is choosing sides. I think we all are on the same side, we write Free Software, there is no need to expose sides where we differ. Like social status, profession, country, cultural/religious ethics etc. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
