Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1276 gnu.misc.discuss:710 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!wuarchive!decwrl!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: The meaning of life, as it relates to hacking. Message-ID: Date: 4 Jan 90 19:00:55 GMT References: <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu> <4859@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4877@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@decwrl.dec.com Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 43 In-reply-to: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com's message of 4 Jan 90 11:05:36 GMT >> You cut off my message again (for the second time running). The very next >> sentence makes this distinction. If you don't understand or aren't willing >> to consider this a distinction, then why don't you just drop it instead of >> accusing me of using the law to force my sense of morality on other people. I cut your message off because your distinction is immaterial. You _are_ using the law to force your sense of morality on other people. To you it may just be ego-boosting or just compensation. To the person who's got the software, it's a morality issue. In this case, their views count, not yours. For instance: >> > And here's two other cases; one in which you require that they not >> > give their tools to their friends. >> >> Again, it's pure and simple self-interest. Morality has nothing to do >> with it. Oh? You don't consider it immoral to give away software against the authers wishes? In that case, I can understand why you'd complain about having someones morals forced on you, as you otherwise don't have any in this area. If you do consider it immoral to give away software against the authors wishesm, then the copyright laws are being used to force your morals on others. That you're doing it out of self-interest is immaterial. Of course, you could insist that it's the givers viewpoint that matters, then you can consider that RMS isn't forcing his moral views on anyone, he's doing this out of simple self-interest. He's extracting just compensation in the form of more software that he can use without have to worry about licensing agreements, etc. That everybody else gets the same benefits from his work is gravy. From my viewpoint, you're doing the same thing RMS is doing, except that he benefits all of society instead of just himself. I still want to know why what you're doing is "self-interest", and what he's doing is "despicable"