when assessing the liability of an action i think it is important to note "intent". to me the words, tool and weapon refer to the same item used w/ two different desired outcomes by the user. since many commentors have referred to guns, lets take a look at guns under the "eye of intent".
is the intent of the manufacturer to inflict pain? if yes, then is that infliction justifiable (self defense or a shooting spree in a day care center)?
once we "establish" a manufacturer's or developer's, intent then we can proceed by holding or not holding the manufacturer responsible for the products negative externalities.
if the manufacturer is indeed found guilty of bad intent it still does not void ethical responsibility from the person who was actually responsible for setting off the chain of events. e.g. if a computer virus was designed to clean out innnocent recipients then not only is the coder responsible but also the person who knowingly distributed the virus along the pipe-line. however, if a virus (like some email viruses) passes itself along then only the coder should be held responsible.
human beings (and we know there are exceptions) have a basic inteligence quotient, and general moral and ethical reasoning levels. sometimes those levels are hard to define but other times they can be crystallized into a litmus test of percieved gain or loss by the one performing the action (the actor). if that perception of gain and loss is based upon malice and harm to others, and gain to the actor then the actor is responsible.
the responsibilty of ill-fates resulting from an action should always have the possibility of lying on both; the one producing the tool/weapon (which is essentially the same mass of quantifiable matter used for two distinct purposes) until it is proven that one or both parties utilized it with intent to cause harm. by objectively earmarking a particlular item or practice as a tool or weapon we take out the very core of human intelligence which i believe can turn a "weapon" into a tool.
likewise, by objectively earmarking a potential "tool" as a "weapon" we undermine the same creative impulses. and by bastardizing certain practices we not only ignore their positive attributes but hinder their progress, thus hindering our own.
as a ju-jitsu player i know that the art of ju-jitsu can be a lot of fun, can be aesthetically and atheletically appealing. but at the same token it can be deadly. but i have to chose to use it in a deadly fashion. to say that ju-jitsu should be banned because it is a deadly art would be ludicrous. all ju-jitsu players are not killers. and even if they were, there are other efficient ways to inflict pain and injury. in this casse the responsibility lies on the individual practitioner and not on the teacher who taught the art.
as long as the individual has some basic level of intelligence he or she can be held responsible for the actions. and since both the manufacturer/coder of a product and the user of the product on this planet are both human beings (as far as we know) then the ultimate responsibilty lies on both people based on their intent on the usage of the product.
"i may not agree with your position but i will defend to death your right to do so."
you make some good points here but your argument seems to suffer from over simplification. "In the end, no it doesn't. Linux will stand or fall on it's own, no matter WHAT Sun or Microsoft do" as one of the bigger players in the market place sun does not operate in a vacum. sun's actions in any direction impact other companys. changes in strategies can come about in one organization from anothers actions. i concede that does not neccessarily mean the demise of one corp. or a drastic change in operations in another corp. but adjustments are made. always. take Linux for example. since its inrto in the market, corps. are taking a different look at things. lets take sun; it could be argued that if it weren't for Linux the SCSL would have never happened. sure they had opened up java well before Linux came around. but open java served a neccessary purpose. Flip side of the coin...what if Sun comes out tomorrow and starts open distribution of Solaris. " It will be THEY who are affected by Sun's stance, not GNU, not Linux, not the OSI, not even the moons of Saturn." I know free Solaris is unlikely, but i think it would be a poor assessment to say that it won't impact Linux, m$, IBM, HP, or anyone else if it were to happen. the impact could be positive or negative on any of these and many other companies. however, i agree with you that Sun's understanding of open source is irrelevant. a company's responsibilty is to increase stockholder equity. and i think sun is just trying to do their job. there is much to be said about "If Sun go the OSS route, they have long-term survival. If they don't, they won't". customers want stability, uniformity, backwards compatibility. the statement is too drastic to say that by not following OSS, clients will just dump Sun. I agree that a "complete dump" is a posibility , a remote one, but a possibility. however it could take years, may be a decade or two. And even then the Linux community or others would have to come up with products and services that not only meet but excede Sun's. "the major decisions of top-ranking companies don't move mountains" only explosions move mountains, and only in relatively small pieces. but corp. decisions can impact elections, economies, and more importantly, you and i. if diamler chrysler lays off thirty thuosand people (a major corporate decision) it is unlikely that america or the rest of the world would wake up w/o expos facto changes, in the stock market, car prices, and the direct impact on famiiles. i have been without a job for an extended period of time before. and when i did get a job it seemed as though a mountain had been lifted off my shoulders.
Slashdot Mirror
- is the intent of the manufacturer to inflict pain? if yes, then is that infliction justifiable (self defense or a shooting spree in a day care center)?
once we "establish" a manufacturer's or developer's, intent then we can proceed by holding or not holding the manufacturer responsible for the products negative externalities.if the manufacturer is indeed found guilty of bad intent it still does not void ethical responsibility from the person who was actually responsible for setting off the chain of events. e.g. if a computer virus was designed to clean out innnocent recipients then not only is the coder responsible but also the person who knowingly distributed the virus along the pipe-line. however, if a virus (like some email viruses) passes itself along then only the coder should be held responsible.
human beings (and we know there are exceptions) have a basic inteligence quotient, and general moral and ethical reasoning levels. sometimes those levels are hard to define but other times they can be crystallized into a litmus test of percieved gain or loss by the one performing the action (the actor). if that perception of gain and loss is based upon malice and harm to others, and gain to the actor then the actor is responsible.
the responsibilty of ill-fates resulting from an action should always have the possibility of lying on both; the one producing the tool/weapon (which is essentially the same mass of quantifiable matter used for two distinct purposes) until it is proven that one or both parties utilized it with intent to cause harm. by objectively earmarking a particlular item or practice as a tool or weapon we take out the very core of human intelligence which i believe can turn a "weapon" into a tool.
likewise, by objectively earmarking a potential "tool" as a "weapon" we undermine the same creative impulses. and by bastardizing certain practices we not only ignore their positive attributes but hinder their progress, thus hindering our own.
as a ju-jitsu player i know that the art of ju-jitsu can be a lot of fun, can be aesthetically and atheletically appealing. but at the same token it can be deadly. but i have to chose to use it in a deadly fashion. to say that ju-jitsu should be banned because it is a deadly art would be ludicrous. all ju-jitsu players are not killers. and even if they were, there are other efficient ways to inflict pain and injury. in this casse the responsibility lies on the individual practitioner and not on the teacher who taught the art.
as long as the individual has some basic level of intelligence he or she can be held responsible for the actions. and since both the manufacturer/coder of a product and the user of the product on this planet are both human beings (as far as we know) then the ultimate responsibilty lies on both people based on their intent on the usage of the product.
"i may not agree with your position but i will defend to death your right to do so."
you make some good points here but your argument seems to suffer from over simplification. "In the end, no it doesn't. Linux will stand or fall on it's own, no matter WHAT Sun or Microsoft do" as one of the bigger players in the market place sun does not operate in a vacum. sun's actions in any direction impact other companys. changes in strategies can come about in one organization from anothers actions. i concede that does not neccessarily mean the demise of one corp. or a drastic change in operations in another corp. but adjustments are made. always. take Linux for example. since its inrto in the market, corps. are taking a different look at things. lets take sun; it could be argued that if it weren't for Linux the SCSL would have never happened. sure they had opened up java well before Linux came around. but open java served a neccessary purpose. Flip side of the coin...what if Sun comes out tomorrow and starts open distribution of Solaris. " It will be THEY who are affected by Sun's stance, not GNU, not Linux, not the OSI, not even the moons of Saturn." I know free Solaris is unlikely, but i think it would be a poor assessment to say that it won't impact Linux, m$, IBM, HP, or anyone else if it were to happen. the impact could be positive or negative on any of these and many other companies. however, i agree with you that Sun's understanding of open source is irrelevant. a company's responsibilty is to increase stockholder equity. and i think sun is just trying to do their job. there is much to be said about "If Sun go the OSS route, they have long-term survival. If they don't, they won't". customers want stability, uniformity, backwards compatibility. the statement is too drastic to say that by not following OSS, clients will just dump Sun. I agree that a "complete dump" is a posibility , a remote one, but a possibility. however it could take years, may be a decade or two. And even then the Linux community or others would have to come up with products and services that not only meet but excede Sun's. "the major decisions of top-ranking companies don't move mountains" only explosions move mountains, and only in relatively small pieces. but corp. decisions can impact elections, economies, and more importantly, you and i. if diamler chrysler lays off thirty thuosand people (a major corporate decision) it is unlikely that america or the rest of the world would wake up w/o expos facto changes, in the stock market, car prices, and the direct impact on famiiles. i have been without a job for an extended period of time before. and when i did get a job it seemed as though a mountain had been lifted off my shoulders.