[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: Yoni Rabkin
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:48:45 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

> 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"

reply via email to

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