Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Copyfree

[Blaise Alleyne]

On 26/02/16 04:13 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 26/02/16 22:06, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
>> It does mean that bludgeoning people / copyright isn't always
>> wrong.
> Something can be bad yet necessary. One can e.g. reject power as a bad
> thing, but still accept that children should perhaps not have the
> freedom to choose their own diet, should their choices lead to a
> harmful diet; there is no conflict here. One can bludgeon someone to
> escape murder and copyright software to prevent someone from making
> software nonfree, all the while maintaining that bludgeoning and
> copyright are evils.
> 

Guess we have a diffrent ethical philosophy then. I don't think it's ever
ethically okay to *do* evil, even though there may be situations in which we
*tolerate* evil effects of good or neutral actions, because we can't separate
out the evil effects.

To get the discussion back on track... whatever the ethical philosophy, I think
we agree that copyright is sometimes necessary or at least useful, that,
ethically speaking, copyright isn't something to be avoided always at all costs.

>> It is, perhaps, morally neutral, or maybe only prima facie wrong,
>> but not intrinsically/always wrong.
> I do not accept morals.
> 
> As for copyright as well as bludgeoning people, I think both are --
> ethically speaking -- evils.
> 

So... s/morally/ethically/g