[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:16:48 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0


I and others made very clear and practical points about why your
decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. 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).

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.

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.

Aaron Wolf
music teacher,

reply via email to

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