Wrapping up the answers to several posts: On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Uwe Pross wrote: > Good morning Fvwm Workers, > > How about making a statement on the fvwm web site instead > of a new license? Strictly speaking, it is no more than a statement, not a license. I call it a license and put it in the sources in order to force Linux distributors to mention it. I do not want that it can be completely ignored. And I will not tinker with the "license" until no more than drivel remains.
-- Several people called it 'inappropriate' or 'the wrong way' to involve my work in ethics. I might add that the "Ethical Use" statement refers only to the code I have written, but the effect is the same. And let me express again that I find I much worse than inappropriate to solve anything by killing. -- On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:35:02AM +0000, Tim Phipps wrote: > When I'm compiling stuff from source I > usually scan the first screen full of all files starting with capitial > letters, I don't care if it's GPL or BSD as long as I can use it for > free. The ethical license affects the GPL in no way. > 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. > I also think you should put a short introduction to the ETHICAL_LICENSE > file that lists those who support it. It already has. > 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? -- On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:38:34AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 28 Mar 2003 17:47:32 -0500, Dan Espen wrote: > > > > > added to the list of subscribers. > > > > I don't agree. > > > > Given the amount of work I do, I think it will be easy to override > > my vote if others feel as you do. > > 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. > > > Your stated plan is to leave Fvwm. Have you reconsidered? > > > > I don't think any tie-in with the software, especially as it > > pertains to the license is a good idea. > > > > Please uncommit until you get agreement so that I can continue > > to check out, build, test until then. > > > > > > > * 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. > 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? Yes, for me too. Both is utterly unethical. A human life is a human life is a human life. > Many thousands of people in just my country die in road accidents because > of drunken drivers. If I would want to be ethical and non-political, I > would rather discriminate drinking drivers than military engineers. > > How about banks? My friend works in a state bank that deals with all > ministries, including financing of the Ministry of Defence. Mikhael, believe me that I have thought thoroughly about this. I concluded that if I started listing everything that could take part in one of said unethical actions, the statement would grow up to a state where it becomes meaningless. > 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. 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". > Dominik, you say it is not political, but you still mention dates and > country names in the license as if the only innocent deaths in the world > were on these dates. Outside of the license. It is only in the accompanying comment. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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]
