On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:44:12PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a
> > > > right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms,
> > > Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil.
> > Nonsense. I can justify every one of the DFSG's existing requirements
> > from nothing but a technical standpoint.
> Then they're technical judgements, and morals don't (or at least needn't)
> come into it *for you*. Other people may feel that the requirements are
> morally-based, in which case, for those people, he's right.
No, the DFSG is a set of moral judgements: "licenses that do such-n-such
are unacceptably bad". Those judgements can be justified in terms of
technical benefits they obtain.
If you want to say that a particular judgement can have both moral and
technical aspects, that's fine; but saying that any judgement which
has moral aspects can never be justified by technical means is false,
and claiming that any of the DFSG's judgements don't contain technical
aspects is simply false.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgp12aK8G9kdk.pgp
Description: PGP signature