[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Copyright waivers for developers?

From: Barry Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Copyright waivers for developers?
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:46:52 -0400

Mike Hoolehan wrote:
> There's nothing illegal about having employees voluntarily sign agreements
> as condition of employment.  Fortunately, no one is going to throw you in
> jail, Barry, for not wanting to sign such an agreement, but you may not
> get the job!
> If I may, the "evil" here is not necessarily just the potential employer.
> If potential employees all refused to sign this sort of thing, and instead
> flocked to more benevolent employers, then soon the "bad" employers would
> have to change their practices in order to compete for employees.  But as
> long as enough workers are willing to put up with sub-par employers in
> order to get the salary or work resources or research dollars or whatever
> it is they truly want, we're stuck with the way things are.
> In places where employee rights _really_ are not respected as human rights,
> things are much different.  When workers are stripped of their right to
> choose employment, real evil abounds.
> Mike

I think we have an ethical disagreement here.  I see what you're saying
and you're right - however, it doesn't forgive obviously dubious and
unethical practices.  It doesn't matter whether it's illegal or not (I
said it should be illegal, btw - not that it was), it's immoral and
unethical.  It treats people as commodities and it doesn't matter
whether it's foreign investors in third world nations bribing government
officials to look the other way while they run sweatshops or whether
it's here in the United States... a rat is a rat no matter where it

Incidentally, the choice of employment argument is dubious because
people have to have resources to survive.  This is probably the single
thing that has stopped large labor movements throughout history.  

And keep in mind, to follow the mindset that we must only attack the
most agregious ethical breaches is to invite defeat.  There must be no
shelter for those who would wish to defame humanity for the sake of
personal profit.  Whether it's stealing someone's rights to fair
treatment or whether it's stealing your right to think by legalese. 
This is like saying that we should ignore muggings in central park
because people should know better than to walk in central park.  I
reject this on principal.

Before this gets too far off topic, we should quit or take it off list.  


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]