ethical ubuntu

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Tuesday 06 June 2006 17:51, Jack Wasey wrote:
> > Don't you think, as a supporter of freedom of software, that is wrong to
> > inhibit the use of software.[snip]
>
> Yes, I agree, which is why the spec is about information, not inhibition.

"not make installing alien applications easier than it already is, as is 
widely proposed"

This seems to imply that making software harder to install is a good thing, I 
think that defeats the point of software freedom, that everybody is free to 
use whatever software they choose, provided it is legal.

I did read the rest of your post, and I know it talks about information only, 
but this phrase seems fairly explicit.

Also, I'm not sure if I'm in favour of "ethical dialogue boxes" (not a quote, 
paraphrasing). Most people wouldn't read them. The need for education must be 
addressed before people install the software, and ultimately, those who are 
interested and care will find out for themselves, so they really don't need 
this.

Also, I would not contend that it is even a bad thing for companies to comply 
with censorship regulations. If that is the only way for them to do business 
int eh country, and lets not forget that google and skype are still providing 
an exceptionally valuable service, one which int eh case of google is quite 
irreplaceable, the positives outweigh the negatives. Even in those countries 
which feature this censorship, the people still benefit enormously from their 
services and programs.

The case of Yahoo is totally different, for them to voluntarily give the 
Chinese government information leading to an innocent person's arrest is 
unforgivable. I heard about that shortly after it happened, and have not used 
their services since. I realise that here some people will accuse me of 
inconsistency, and with some justification because arguably yahoo too 
provides a valuable and useful service, however, in my world view it is an 
issue of where you draw the lines. When somebody is actually hurt, then 
without a doubt the company has acted far more immorally, and certainly 
deserves more opprobrium and boycotts than does a company that only engages 
in a rather mild form of censorship (it should be remembered that other 
google sites are accessible from China, and they are not censored, so the 
censorship is hardly prevalent).

Sasha