Charles Cossé wrote on 19.12.2016 08:20:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, J.B. Nicholson <jbn@forestfield.org mailto:jbn@forestfield.org> wrote: Perhaps not (I can't say for sure without looking into the licenses of the program dependencies), but your intentions shouldn't limit what people can do with the software on their own computers.
Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". "My intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the user's "rights" exceed mine as the author? I'm willing to bet that there is at least one other person out there in the FSF(E) community that is willing to stand-up and publicly challenge that assertion. Anyone?
not me; I think the ethical issue is the main point about the free software movement: of course you have every /right/ to do what you like, but not all choices are ethically equal; I see the choice to publish non-free software as a choice that deliberately excludes friends, neighbors, fellow humans from taking full advantage of the software by exploiting the (rather recently created) so-called intellectual property laws, and, all else being equal, I see such restrictions to the free flow of information as morally wrong.
However, "all else being equal" rarely holds and I do not think that programming freedom and the free flow of information is the one and only guideline for our decisions. I think one has to balance this with other moral requirements (maybe in an utilitarian way) in any given situation.
I agree with you that these ethical stances are ultimately unprovable and to which you choose to adhere is a value decision that is not amenable to mathematical proof. However, one can try to derive such principles from (in turn unprovable) "ethical axioms" such as the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative, or utilitarian ("greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number") principles. What one, in my opinion, cannot do is to deny that it is a decision with ethical implications.
I do not think that FSF(E) should change their stance in tis regard: all of us are making a lot of moral compromises every day and one purpose of organizations like FSF(E) (or EFF, ai, Greenpeace) etc is to emphasize the moral implications of our choices, to hold up clearly the ethical principles and to make it (over time) easier to adhere to them.
best regards Geza (FSF(E) Fellow, not speaking on behalf of either organization)