On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > I imagine > >> most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority > >> disagree with them. > >> > > > > Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you > > mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are. > > Accept that they've lost the argument and move on. > This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all - arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as which position more people agree with. > > > (This is assuming only options actually legal > >> under the license are considered.) > >> > > > > I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one > > either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't > > sufficient. > > How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective > concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it. I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think it's subjective at all. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l