Now, assume one day one of the HfH guys comes to the jobsite and launches into a rant about xyz.. We don't have to specify what xyz is, only that it's something horribly offensive...
Said person is kicked off the job site and asked to never return to HfH...
Why? Why are you treating someone who has been so generous for so long like garbage? How is your treatment of him ethical in any way? Instead of acting like a religious inquisitor, why not be tolerant? Where's the kindness and appreciation?
And who decided it was offensive? Who decided how offensive? Who decided "offensive" is the only thing that matters? Why not decide otherwise, for the sake of the project? Or for peace? Or to avoid the ethical question of treating a generous, giving person like garbage?
Sure, he's not getting his work back. And you can absolutely treat him like trash as much as you choose. Or you could choose to be tolerant. What’s the ethical choice?
The "regardless of ethics" discussion is not a discussion I'm interested in having.
Be tolerant and don't ostracize people, and none of this is even a question. But that would require not writing rules and not policing them against people.
Different ac, but everyone replying to you has been making points, but in your replies you've just repeated your original point with slightly different wording, not addressing their point. I don't know if you are doing that on purpose to troll them, or you haven't realised you are repeating yourself.
Because I get it.
They are making a legalistic argument about how they can get away with doing what they want. Agreed, they probably can. Maybe not though, I'm not a lawyer and courts aren't always predictable.
I am making an ethical argument about taking someone’s contributions and then throwing that person out. Ostracizing them and keeping their work, against their wishes.
I will 100% grant that you're totally going to get away with doing that (for a while, until enough people wise up and stop working on your project).
Is that who you want to be? Is that the variety of ethics you want to associate with? Why open that door at all? Who benefits? Why not get along and be tolerant (even of some occasional assholishness) instead of imposing rules and policing them against people?
That is a laughable claim which hinges on the word contributed. Wouldn't it be great of Catholics could demand their contributions returned.
Wouldn't it be great if, instead of making rules and starting fights and choosing sides and trying to exclude people, there was a show of tolerance and appreciation for contributions?
That's a lot of talk to justify treating people badly after they contributed to a project, and keeping their contributions so you can benefit from them while you treat them badly.
Why do you want to treat people badly? Why are you trying to find ways to avoid consequences for treating people badly?
If you want to keep someone's contributions, then exercise tolerance towards them. If you won't tolerate them, don't use their work against their wishes.
Nobody forced said person to volunteer his work. Nobody forced him to agree with the GPLv2. In exchange he gets to have access to future modifications of his code under the same principle and nobody can ban him from that.
Nobody is forcing you to ostracize that person, and keep his code, and use it, against his wishes either. You could have been tolerant instead and not ostracized him. You could be ethical and not use his code against his wishes.
Why are you arguing for the right to be intolerant and unethical? Why do you want to benefit from the work of people you refuse to tolerate?
You want to condemn someone's character, exclude them, and keep and benefit from their volunteered contributions, against their wishes?
If you're too good to associate with a specific individual, then don't take their work, don't keep their work, don't use their work.
Don't talk to us about character when you're ostracizing people and using their work against their wishes, like some sort of corporate comic book villain.
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
If you don’t want someone included, you don't get to benefit from their contributions either. If you want to benefit from their contributions, then get off your high horse and exercise some tolerance.
The right to ostracize someone and keep and continue benefitting from their volunteered work is not something an ethical person would fight for.
I hope Stallman's transformation from idealist to corporate lawyer is reversible.
If it showed boys consistently outperformed girls on math and science, it wouldn’t be allowed to be published. For the same reason, the data can never be refuted.
And that's what matters. Until we all decide to tell people who take offense that we don't care about their feelings any more than they care about ours.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, assume one day one of the HfH guys comes to the jobsite and launches into a rant about xyz.. We don't have to specify what xyz is, only that it's something horribly offensive...
Said person is kicked off the job site and asked to never return to HfH...
Why? Why are you treating someone who has been so generous for so long like garbage? How is your treatment of him ethical in any way? Instead of acting like a religious inquisitor, why not be tolerant? Where's the kindness and appreciation?
And who decided it was offensive? Who decided how offensive? Who decided "offensive" is the only thing that matters? Why not decide otherwise, for the sake of the project? Or for peace? Or to avoid the ethical question of treating a generous, giving person like garbage?
Sure, he's not getting his work back. And you can absolutely treat him like trash as much as you choose. Or you could choose to be tolerant. What’s the ethical choice?
The "regardless of ethics" discussion is not a discussion I'm interested in having.
Be tolerant and don't ostracize people, and none of this is even a question. But that would require not writing rules and not policing them against people.
Nobody is keeping his work away from him.
No, they're just treating him like garbage and keeping the gift he gave them.
How is it bad behaviour? Or unethical?
Because right and wrong aren't about protecting your sweet, sweet mound of treasure.
Someone gave you a gift. Show appreciation.
Different ac, but everyone replying to you has been making points, but in your replies you've just repeated your original point with slightly different wording, not addressing their point. I don't know if you are doing that on purpose to troll them, or you haven't realised you are repeating yourself.
Because I get it.
They are making a legalistic argument about how they can get away with doing what they want. Agreed, they probably can. Maybe not though, I'm not a lawyer and courts aren't always predictable.
I am making an ethical argument about taking someone’s contributions and then throwing that person out. Ostracizing them and keeping their work, against their wishes.
I will 100% grant that you're totally going to get away with doing that (for a while, until enough people wise up and stop working on your project).
Is that who you want to be? Is that the variety of ethics you want to associate with? Why open that door at all? Who benefits? Why not get along and be tolerant (even of some occasional assholishness) instead of imposing rules and policing them against people?
That is a laughable claim which hinges on the word contributed. Wouldn't it be great of Catholics could demand their contributions returned.
Wouldn't it be great if, instead of making rules and starting fights and choosing sides and trying to exclude people, there was a show of tolerance and appreciation for contributions?
No need to keep explaining the mechanism. It isn't ethical to conspire to use it against people who were kind and generous enough to contribute.
Again, I don't need another 4 or 20 paragraphs on how you're totally going to get away with it.
That's a lot of talk to justify treating people badly after they contributed to a project, and keeping their contributions so you can benefit from them while you treat them badly.
Why do you want to treat people badly? Why are you trying to find ways to avoid consequences for treating people badly?
If you want to keep someone's contributions, then exercise tolerance towards them. If you won't tolerate them, don't use their work against their wishes.
even in Europe property rights (IP law) are going to trump Moral rights.
As the saying goes, Possession is 9/10ths of the law
You guys sound like comic book villains talking about how you're going to get away with it. Just FYI.
Nobody forced said person to volunteer his work. Nobody forced him to agree with the GPLv2. In exchange he gets to have access to future modifications of his code under the same principle and nobody can ban him from that.
Nobody is forcing you to ostracize that person, and keep his code, and use it, against his wishes either. You could have been tolerant instead and not ostracized him. You could be ethical and not use his code against his wishes.
Why are you arguing for the right to be intolerant and unethical? Why do you want to benefit from the work of people you refuse to tolerate?
How absurd does this have you get before you start think maybe this isn't such a good idea?
Ostracizing contributors and keeping their contributions is a bad idea. It's bad behavior. It's unethical. I thought that was clear.
Be tolerant if you want to have a community project with volunteers contributing to it.
It shows only the poorest class of character
You want to condemn someone's character, exclude them, and keep and benefit from their volunteered contributions, against their wishes?
If you're too good to associate with a specific individual, then don't take their work, don't keep their work, don't use their work.
Don't talk to us about character when you're ostracizing people and using their work against their wishes, like some sort of corporate comic book villain.
Out with you!
But we're keeping your code, against your wishes. We're the good guys.
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
If you don’t want someone included, you don't get to benefit from their contributions either. If you want to benefit from their contributions, then get off your high horse and exercise some tolerance.
The right to ostracize someone and keep and continue benefitting from their volunteered work is not something an ethical person would fight for.
I hope Stallman's transformation from idealist to corporate lawyer is reversible.
If it showed boys consistently outperformed girls on math and science, it wouldn’t be allowed to be published. For the same reason, the data can never be refuted.
He was responsible. The President is responsible for the activities of the people who work for him. That’s the job.
That everybody does it defense is incompatible with the my team is Good, the other team is Evil storytelling.
Remember when we found out Trump’s predecessor was using the NSA to spy on everyone?
someone was offended
And that's what matters. Until we all decide to tell people who take offense that we don't care about their feelings any more than they care about ours.
Your feelings about clothes matter.
Do women have complaints about the engineers' clothes? That's what really matters when things like this are accomplished: women's feelings about clothes.
The last person at that location should set fire to the building.
Please put one outside my house. I want good 5G service.
Spend less than X
Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?