Message 02449 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02440 Message: 4/10 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: usage of software and the CGPL



On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 02:50:50AM -0000, George Dafermos wrote:
i've been lurking indeed, but it seems i must have been blind or
something.

I'm happy you finally replied!


G: good to talk to you too Mako!

We need enforceable ethics, but this enforceability need not
necessarily stem from the current legal system, which is partly
rotten, unethical, and many of its aspects are bound to collapse;
ethics is not a question that legal systems should decide- and the
CGPL is a p2p agreement among autonomous people who value community
to be ethical.

I don't understand this. If you *know* it's unenforceable under the
current legal system and are instead depending on the agreements of
individuals, why would you attempt to codify this in *legal* terms
within a *legal* license? 


G: it's crazy at first, i know. It's a contradiction, and this invariably draws people's attention. makes them think and perhaps tick. and this is exactly why it might fulfil its goal. using an imaginary legal mechanism to reflect the inadequacies of an imaginary system run by accountants and lawyers. and in much the same way the *balance scorecard* (- an accounting tool supposedly suited for measuring knowledge and identifying where it resides inside an organisation, but which also made many people re-think their attitude toward both accounting and mostly about what is the important thing inside an organisation) - ridiculed creative accounting's deficiencies, what the CGPL proposes is a social agreement rather than a legal binding document.


G: As you remark, enforceability is a key issue, i personally believe the CGPL will be enforeable when it reaches its final version, but that is also dependent upon other variables (ie. emanating from disrepancies between different juridical systems, or from judges's interpretation). But bear in mind, that the enforceability part is not the primary concern of the CGPL, in terms of and because of its philosophy, at least for now.     





There are a number of projects harnessed by the CGPL.

Interesting to know that at least a couple people have put it into
use.

4. KnoBot, WYMIWYG - dual licensed with BSD-style license
[wymiwyg.org/knobot]

This reduces the CGPL to a gesture. I prefer this but it still seems a
bit silly.


G: humour and manifestations of human emotions are good in life.

5. there are also a number of technologies that are not licensed
under the CGPL, but embrace its principles and are run in alignment
with the underlying ethical perspective as set forth by the
CGPL. Principal among these is a japanese adaptation of mandrake -
NihonLinux

Can you explain what you mean by "embrace its principles?" Have you
read some of my posts to this and/or do you remember the talk I gave
at LSM last year?

G: been there and enjoyed your presentation very much. 


I've talked a lot about fostering ethical development communities
through an ethically imbued development practice and communities used
as sites for ethical cultivation. If those ethics are about doing
good, does this count as "embracing the principles?"

G: yes. linux is an apt archetype of an ethical project "embracing the principles". "embracing the principles" in the case of nihonlinux in particular means that the nihonlinux people see value in the CGPL and agree that the future need be sustainable and ethical as well as libre in technical knowledge and digital artefacts, but they, however, release under the GNU GPL (as othewise would have been a case of copyright infingment).




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.


G: i don't think that the CGPL is counterproductive to the  enforceability of the GNU GPL. We will however need to give it another thought from this vantage point which i must admit i had not considered till now. If the CGPL harms in any way the GNU GPL by undermining the latter's enforceability, then we will have to re-think the raison d'etre of the CGPL, since we all feel strongly about the GPL, seeing it as the cornerstone of digital freedom. I will bring this to the attention of the other members of the CGPL.   

g.


Regards,
Mako

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT02440 Message: 4/10 L1 [In index]
Message 02449 [Homepage] [Navigation]