Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
Posted Dec 20, 2005 1:22 UTC (Tue) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)In reply to: um, have you tried reading what he's written? by tjc
Parent article: Free Software as a Social Movement (Z Magazine)
You deliberately gave the incorrect definition: ethical, rather than ethics. The correct definition here [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics] gives as its first definition a much different meaning.
Posted Dec 20, 2005 4:31 UTC (Tue)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Dec 20, 2005 13:48 UTC (Tue)
by mepr (guest, #4819)
[Link] (4 responses)
And, you again choose the non-dominant definition of the word to make your point, as "ethical" in the professional sense is listed here as sense number 2, whereas the primary definition is "pertaining to ethics."
If you have taken the time to read what Stallman has to say, then you already know that his ethics of liberated and non-liberated software spring up out of the question of whether it is ethical to propagate a social arrangement where people are unable or not allowed to freely use, share, study or improve software, or to control their own computers.
In other words, it is a social ethic before it is a professional ethic.
It is, in the current legal environment, a question of professional ethics insofar as professionals and businesses are helping to propagate a social system where people do not have those rights.
All of this is explained, irrespective of whether you intellectually stretch to agree or not.
Posted Dec 20, 2005 15:58 UTC (Tue)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link]
My comments regarding the "conduct of a profession" part of this definition were limited to noting that software development is a profession. Reading through this thread, it seems that more than one person has abandoned any sort of objectivity in their zeal for the cause of free software.
Posted Dec 20, 2005 16:11 UTC (Tue)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Dec 20, 2005 20:18 UTC (Tue)
by mepr (guest, #4819)
[Link] (1 responses)
Except that the rebuttals were such nice elucidations in rebuttal that it made reading the thread a pleasure.
* Definition 1 in http://www.google.com/search?q=define:facile
Posted Dec 20, 2005 20:32 UTC (Tue)
by mepr (guest, #4819)
[Link]
Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
You deliberately gave the incorrect definition: ethical, rather than ethics.
Did you read the article? RMS used the word "ethical" 4 or 5 times in the interview; he didn't say anything about ethics. I was commenting on what RMS said in the interview, not on the subject of ethics in general.
this is really a bunch of sophistry, and you make the point others are trying to make quite elegantly yourself, by insisting on limiting ethics to the professional sphere. The ethics of software freedom encompass the individual, the social group, businesses, professionals and governments, all of which are involved today in agreements on how to share (or not share) software. Everyone, in progressive order, who has ever used a computer or wanted to share software or alter software or write software is involved.Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
you make the point others are trying to make quite elegantly yourself, by insisting on limiting ethics to the professional sphere.
I am not insisting that ethics is limited to the professional sphere, I was simply quoting an entry from the dictionary! Just to be clear about this, here is is again:
eth·i·cal Audio pronunciation of "ethical" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with ethics.
2. Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession. See Synonyms at moral.
3. Of or relating to a drug dispensed solely on the prescription of a physician.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethical
Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
All of this is explained, irrespective of whether you intellectually stretch to agree or not.
Personally, I don't find condescending statements like that to be very persuasive. They may satiate your pride, but they certainly don't add anything to the discussion.
Yes, it was a shame getting involved in such a facile* conversation. Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
mmm. Wrong word (was: um, have you tried reading what he's written?)
and now i've done it again.