Re: [tlug] Re: is there a real possibility that Sco get what it claims?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Raymond" == Raymond Regalado <fwgk5942@example.com> writes:

    Raymond> I can appreciate your apprehension.  *But* we can not
    Raymond> deny that there are such things as "moral obligations" in
    Raymond> this universe, whether or not we all agree about what
    Raymond> they are.  If there are no moral obligations in this
    Raymond> universe, then no one can say that SCO is *wrong* in
    Raymond> anything they do or say.

Of course it's your right to disagree with others' ideas of what the
obligations are, but claiming that one whose ideas you disagree with
denies the existence of moral obligations puts _you_ outside the pale.
No need for a jury; convicted by your own words, as it were.  So, if
(as I believe) you were not really implying such a claim, why did you
bring it up?  (Bad habit, is my guess.  It would be a good idea to
break it.)

So, of course there are moral obligations.

What you and Shawn are advocating, from the point of view of free
speech, is removing the _listener's_ moral obligation to distinguish
fact from fiction, and placing the entire burden on the speaker.

For example, of course even the most conservative thinkers about free
speech agree that prohibiting the (inappropriate) screaming of "fire"
in a crowded place is legitimate.  Why?  _If_ the information is
correct, there is no time to check it---the moral obligation is to
_act_, overriding the moral obligation to think about what you heard.
But this is not a problem in the case of SCO's frothings.

And of course there are situations where "caveat lector" is
inappropriate; in court testimony, for example.  In the U.S., with a
few exceptions, testimony is a matter of public record.

Nobody said anything about "do", either.  Just "say."  They need to be
treated quite differently, because "sticks and stones may break my
bones, but words will never hurt me."  In cases where they can (aka
libel and slander), once again, lying is prohibited.  What's the harm
in letting Darl hold press conferences?

    >> And... this is way OT and I could go on for hours... gomen

    Raymond> Yes, OT.

Not really.  Free software is obviously a moral movement.  Always has
been, always will be.  But so is Open Source; with a few exceptions,
the leaders of the Open Source movement advocate the moral superiority
of free software.  (Notwithstanding any Stallmaniac FUD about esr and
rn and Tim O.)

On second thought, unparenthesize that.  The debate between Stallman
(mostly) and the leaders of the OS movement is really important to the
future of FLOSS.  So it shows that we have to understand our moral
foundations.

If you look into the history of the great forks, too, you'll mostly
see that they had moral foundations, along with the ego-based stuff.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.