[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On 4/7/2016 12:32 AM, IngeGNUe wrote:
> Unfortunately that is the nature of rule-making: somebody or some people
> think thing should be a certain way, and seek to make it that way. There
> is no way to enforce rules without ignoring the fact that some person or
> people disagree with said rules. That's where the "force" in enforce
> comes in. There will almost always be dissidents to a given rule.

I understand that no single body of law can please everyone. Pleasure is
not the purpose of laws. Maintaining an orderly society is the purpose
of laws. Those laws which exist solely to please one group at the
expense of others are bad laws. They would never pass in a more perfect
world but since we don't live in that more perfect world we must settle
for the courts overturning bad laws or the electorate amending or
repealing them.


> So as a concrete example, you are doing the same thing as Greg. You are
> using your claim to higher morals in order to justify how something
> should be.

Incorrect on two counts:

I am arrogant and opinionated. I won't hesitate to tell any of you when
I think you're wrong. But I have never claimed higher ethics or superior
morals in order to justify anything.

I am making a statement about how things should *NOT* be. Regardless of
how good or bad what we have now may be, what Greg proposes is worse. It
is tyranny wearing the guise of benevolence.


> Is that a quote from like, John Stuart Mill?

No. C.S. Lewis, as I cited.

> So, in other words a despot with good intentions is worse than bad
> intentions for the whole of the population?

No. A tyrant with good intentions is the worst kind of tyrant.

> In any case, libre-lovers aren't despotic, the free software
> world is more of a lightly-regulated market.

Please explain how enforcement of one single license, to the exclusion
of all others, is in any way "lightly-regulated".

-- 
Rich P.