Am Fr., 12. Juni 2020 um 15:05 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>: > > > „Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen > > kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.“ - Immanuel Kant > > > > (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, > > will that it should become a universal law.) > > > But this doesn't mean that we don't have > > to do our homework. And often, it doesn't even cost anything. When we > > write free software, it doesn't cost anything to license it under the > > GPL (vs the monopolist-friendly so-called more liberal licenses like > > the MIT license). Yet, I have the impression that the younger > > generation has been made blind in this regard. (As everything here, it > > is my personal opinion, of course.) > > It's great that you bring up Kantian ethics - that could be the main > dividing line between free software and open source. I am suspicious of > ethics in general and unimpressed by Kant's imperative in particular. We > say what is good or bad via hidden impulses to advance our own > interests. Ad hoc ethics is largely a rationalization of those impulses. > Attempts at universal ethics are an error since morality is inherently > personal and situational. Group morality is filtered personal morality, > and is even less stable than individual morality. You should talk to Kant about this, he is the better expert than I am. Nevertheless, let me say that the existence of universal ethics is partly what defines humanity in my opinion. Without it, we would be just animals with large brains. And this is something I refuse to believe ([1]). > The younger generation is not missing the point - people simply have > different priorities. When we care deeply about something, the most > uncomfortable thing to come to terms with is that others understand its > merits but are indifferent to them. They may not understand the details > but they get the big picture which generally adds up to "life is short" > and we can't change the world very much. Idealistic people can be very > distressed at the difficulty of change, but we forget that most people > are not. It is sobering to view idealism as a hobby and that most have > other hobbies. Fanatic idealists annoy others because of the insistence > that our corner of the world warrants special importance. The effect is > similar to people who are fanatical about art, sports, or food, but with > the added implication that others are malicious (as opposed to merely > simple-minded or uncultured) for having other interests. Please take a look at Arne's signature. > In the particular case of things like the GPL, LibreJS, and the name > GNU/Linux, many people (myself included) see them as heavy-handed > solutions to issues that may not be problems in the first place. In > highly technological societies people lead very specialized lives, which > means that popular things used by masses of people have to be efficient. > It's mainly hobbies done for leisure that can afford the luxury of being > inefficient. For example, people say Linux instead of GNU/Linux because > it's shorter and easier to understand. The MIT license is used in place > of the GPL for the same reason. Growing up in a high-tech society, we > gradually learn to ignore inefficient things (that don't relate to our > own hobbies) because they will eventually be replaced by things that > work better. Free software aficionados don't mind inefficiencies in > software and even enjoy some of them, but may just as easily balk at > waiting for a late train or queuing at a busy store. Most people feel > that way about software. Free software in turn is not a hobby to most > programmers so they generally want free software programming to be as > easy as proprietary programming. If one solely chooses the MIT license solely because it is easier to understand than the GPL, it's already too late. Marc -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_The_Meaning_of_Life :)
