> Yoni, > > I and others made very clear and practical points about why your > decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good.
I can't imagine how you would know that with such certainty. > Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent > you. Instead, what it allows is for people to represent their *own* > views *alongside* yours in ways that draw on your work directly. I'm > happy for that to happen with my work, and it does not detract from my > own personal expression (and I'm as strong a believer in wanting my > OWN personal expression as anyone). I'm not worried about being misrepresented, and I strongly support CC-BY-SA for anything useful. Finally, I'm sure that there is even use in licensing personal opinions under CC-BY-SA; I don't think that's wrong. I'm pointing out that in my view, choosing to make personal opinions immutable is an acceptable choice, and that I understand and appreciate why the FSF has made this choice. This isn't to say that I don't think that there may be some of the FSF opinion pieces which can be licensed differently to everyone's advantage. But I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which has been revisited many times over thus far.) > It would be extremely sloppy for you to use Logan's lousy argument as an > excuse to justify your conclusions. That would be ignoring reasonable > arguments, cherry-picking ones you don't like, and then asserting that > you are correct because you can point to a bad argument against you. But > that ignores whether your argument is valid or whether there are good > arguments against your points. No worries, I explicitly wrote that I'm happy to continue the discussion on different avenues, just not down the one Logan opened: "I don't mind trying other avenues of conversation, but not one based on dehumanizing my neighbors." > On 05/27/2015 04:26 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: >>>> >>>> Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are >>>> not unique; >>> >>> I have to disagree with you there, computers are in fact >>> unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a >>> rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is >>> idential to another one. At the very least, the MAC address is >>> different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also >>> different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays >>> there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be >>> some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various >>> ways. >>> >>> on top of that, there are different instruction-set >>> architectures, drivers, appendages. >>> >>> >>>> one loaded with the same software is as good as >>>> another. >>>> This isn't true of people because people are unique. >>> >>> Just because a lot of computers have the same "belief system", >>> i.e. Linux, doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like >>> saying "all christian people are the same", disregarding that >>> there are many distributions/denominations, and that each >>> person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy. >>> >>> also same exact software on a different computer, can still give >>> you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. >> >> Drawing an equivalent of any sort between machines, which are lifeless >> manufactured objects, and human beings, and attempting to say that those >> objects are as unique as humans is ethically wrong. This is called >> dehumanizing, and is the source of much trouble. Please don't do that. I >> truly hope (no cynicism in my words here) that nobody will ever treat >> you or anyone you love the same way as a lifeless object, or even try to >> claim that you are like one in order to justify less than humane >> behavior. Each person is a world onto themselves; this is why life is >> precious. >> >> If torturing reality to this extent is what is necessary to make the >> CC-BY-SA argument I can't continue the conversation from this >> point. Sorry. I don't mind trying other avenues of conversation, but not >> one based on dehumanizing my neighbors. >> -- "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"