Re: [ox-en] Re: usage of software and the CGPL
- From: John Bywater <john.bywater appropriatesoftwarefoundation.org>
- Date: 15 Mar 2004 16:52:56 +0000
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 11:15, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I have no problems with creating software that will be used for good
and not evil. I wish everyone did this. I have a problem with trying
to codify this as a form of discriminatory licensing; I have a bigger
problem with doing this in a way that is, by most accounts, is
unenforceable and counterproductive to the enforceability of the less
controversial parts of the license.
Yes, it seems that something might usefully be done. But it is hard to
see what could work.
Yet, Rousseau said that what is good is what is common. So perhaps GPL
already encodes goodness perfectly?
From our analysis, after the positive externalities have been preserved,
all that remains is to grow practices-in-common that constitute a body
of cooperation, or a body of goodness.
This is perhaps why Oekonux has gone 'bad' recently: there has been a
forced line of antagonism, revealing a divergence of practices, and a
consequenct decrease in its goodness. That Stefan claims the territory
as his, yet does not seek to provide convergence, must constitute a
strategic failure.
The Right Thing may be to look for the objectities within the concerns,
but this was stopped up; Stefan has decided it isn't appropriate for him
merely to cooperate with us, he wants to be unilateral sometimes and
expects that to be acceptable to an online group. He still didn't reply
to my very nice private email.
Sadly, cooperation and 'leveling' is identical with being good. Good
manners are identically meta-goodness, and it isn't good manners for a
host to dictate terms to his guest list, whose messages he admits he has
not read. We refer to this condition as a 'dead hand'. A dead hand is
not a Good Thing. Dead hands must be relieved of their suffocating grasp
on life.
But when Oekothustra was alone, she spoke thus to her heart: 'Could it
be possible! This old saint Stefan has not yet heard in his forest that
Oekonux is Dead!'
We need to produce goodness, or in other words, we need to produce
commonality. This is why we need self-control. Talk of self-unfolding
without self-control is a twisted plot woven with broken intentions.
And it may be that the only way to common heaven is through the eye of
objectity.
Objectity is a limit which is not approached by remaining as
individuated singularities.
We must breakdown.
Oekonux, having initially made claims to human progression, and then
self-investing in its own id (worries about people will make of the
archives, it's current unrespectable state, etc.), it is seen that
Oekonux has been heavily invested with Oedipus, and must itself now be
overcome.
Sincerely,
John Bywater.