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

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

>>>>> "Brett" == Brett Robson <b-robson@example.com> writes:

    Brett> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> 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.

    Brett> Why is that the listeners' moral obligation? Things stated
    Brett> as fact should in be fact.

Did I say otherwise?  There is a moral obligation on speakers.  That
there is a moral obligation on one party does not excuse others from
theirs.

In general, people will have different opinions about things that are
actually facts, but they either won't try hard enough to prove them,
or perhaps the evidence simply isn't available at the time of
statement.  And some consensus "facts" turn out not to be true after
all.  It is simply not possible to require that all claims be factual.
It would halt communication.

In the case of SCO, we have a set of claims that are in litigation,
and therefore are by definition of unclear facthood.  I happen to
believe that they're bluffing---they know their case is very weak---
but that's not the same thing as lying.

Listeners _also_ have a moral obligation: to make their own judgements.

Anyway, isn't making your own judgements what FLOSS is all about?

-- 
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.