Re: Mixing GPL and non-copyleft code in source files

[Wojtek Kosior via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <guix-devel@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4562 bytes --]

Hello Alexandre and thank your for your response!

> When facing a situation of abuse, of violence, it may be morally
> defensible for someone to turn a blind eye and allow it to proceed.
> It's questionable, but unlike the abuse itself, it's not uniformly
> reproachable.
> 
> But it's also frequently considered socially valuable (courageous,
> heroic) to intervene, even when placing oneself at moderate risk, by
> using proportional force to defend oneself or third parties from abuse
> and violence.

While not all disagreements can be resolved, it'd be nice to at least
be able to track them down to some "axioms" on which we actually
disagree.  That's what I'm trying to do here and I see that
proportionality is not the *only* criterion I'd apply to decide whether
it is right to use force.  I'd also consider whether I am using force
to (1) directly defend someone, (2) "pay" an abuser for abuse already
done or (3) defend someone indirectly by making a threat to a possible
abuser.  I'd only proceed in case of (1) whereas it seems the community
would like me to at least include (3).

Now, I recognize my approach is unlike and against most people's views.
And it makes getting on with them hard.  Sorry for the nuisance I'm
causing and great thanks to those who, like Alexandre, make efforts to
respond politely and acknowledge my different morality.

Best
Wojtek

-- (sig_start)
website: https://koszko.org/koszko.html
fingerprint: E972 7060 E3C5 637C 8A4F  4B42 4BC5 221C 5A79 FD1A
follow me on Fediverse: https://friendica.me/profile/koszko/profile

♥ R29kIGlzIHRoZXJlIGFuZCBsb3ZlcyBtZQ== | ÷ c2luIHNlcGFyYXRlZCBtZSBmcm9tIEhpbQ==
✝ YnV0IEplc3VzIGRpZWQgdG8gc2F2ZSBtZQ== | ? U2hhbGwgSSBiZWNvbWUgSGlzIGZyaWVuZD8=
-- (sig_end)


On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 15:17:21 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org> wrote:

> Hello, Kosior,
> 
> Happy GNU year to all
> https://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/2023-12-31-happy-gnu-year
> 
> On Dec 27, 2023, Wojtek Kosior via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <guix-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > These legal means can be considered brutal.  Even if I did something
> > bad to someone (which I'm trying not to), I wouldn't like them to make
> > efforts to have me imprisoned or fined.  Similarly, I wish not to have
> > others imprisoned/fined but rather pursue justice via as peaceful means
> > as possible.  
> 
> I acknowledge your preference to avoid litigation and coercion in
> general.  It's relatable.  I wish to make it clear that I don't intend
> to dispute that.
> 
> What I wish to do is to point out that you appear to be equating
> committing violence with intervening to stop violence.
> 
> I understand denying freedom as a form of coercion and thus of violence.
> 
> Refusing to give others power to coerce third parties is not violence.
> It's a common mistake for people to assume that strong copyleft licenses
> take freedoms away, because they establish boundaries to one's legal
> rights.  But some legal rights are freedoms (i.e., about one's own
> life), and others are powers (i.e., over others' lives), and it's
> important to distinguish them to grasp the ethics underneath copyleft.
> 
> The legal rights that copyleft licenses grant are freedoms that everyone
> should have, that copyright law takes away by default, so a license must
> grant them in order to abide by ethics.
> 
> But the legal rights that copyright law reserves to copyright holders,
> and that copyleft licenses do NOT extend to licensees, are powers that
> nobody should have over others; those would be means of coercion, that,
> if used, would amount to violence, to abuse.
> 
> When facing a situation of abuse, of violence, it may be morally
> defensible for someone to turn a blind eye and allow it to proceed.
> It's questionable, but unlike the abuse itself, it's not uniformly
> reproachable.
> 
> But it's also frequently considered socially valuable (courageous,
> heroic) to intervene, even when placing oneself at moderate risk, by
> using proportional force to defend oneself or third parties from abuse
> and violence.
> 
> It's ok if you choose not to be a hero.  But making it a point to
> announce publicly that you won't stand in the way of violence does not
> look to me as good as quietly planning not to do so, which in turn
> doesn't look to me as good as standing against violence to the point of
> intervening when you witness it.
> 
> 
> I hope this makes sense to you,
> 

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]