On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > >>I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well > >>as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who > >>acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Raul Miller wrote: > > What you're doing -- positioning -- is a standard public relations tactic, > > but is not a rational argument. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:21:17PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Tell me please, how software itself can be evil without a human? I consider that a meaningless statement. Anyways, what I was objecting to wasn't your last sentence but the previous sentences, and your larger argument which seems to rest in drawing analogies with illegal drug distribution. > What ethics have to do with software without a human and his actions, > aims, beliefs? Nothing. > It is a human and his actions which can make software evil. Sure, and it is humans and human actions which makes software. [Though, granted, humans use tools to accomplish this, and there's lots of layers of indirection.] Furthermore, without any human involvement, no human can even recognize the presence or absence of anything, let alone something like evil which is closely associated [in the negative sense] with human goals and human outlook. > One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine, > but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be > *distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce > described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2. In your example here, it's the license which is the potential problem, not the software. The phrase "until it will be distributed" makes that very obvious. Also, I can construct examples where software would be used for evil purposes without being distributed at all. -- Raul
