Anarchism FAQ?! WTF?...
eric.dunbar at gmail.com
Wed Feb 14 03:11:40 GMT 2007
On 13/02/07, Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-13-02 at 15:38 -0500, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > However, Ubuntu is used by people in regimes where merely possessing
> > > or even being able to access information on democracy is dangerous
> > > (and, anarchy is the ultimate in local democracy). Is it ethical for
> > > the maintainers of a more-or-less formally associated repository to
> > > expose users in these situations to political risk?
> > I distinguish between political persecutions and intellectual property
> > right prosecutions.
> What is your point supposed to be here, Eric? That it's not OK to break
> intellectual "property" (an entirely intellectually "bankrupt" piece of
> terminology!) but that it is OK to expose Ubuntu users to political
> persecution? Or am I badly misreading you?
Flame bait or just bad reading?
Re-read the post(s). "Is it ethical for the maintainers of a
more-or-less formally associated repository to expose users in these
situations to political risk?"
As for the distinction between IP prosecutions and political
PERSECUTION -- I think that's a fairly self-evident comparison. The
one is trivial and relates to REASONABLE legal limits and the rule of
law within the confines of human rights and freedoms protections 
whereas the other is subject arbitrary detention without the
protection of law operating within the confines of strong human rights
and freedoms protections.
 However much one may disagree with IP rights and protections,
GNU/BSD/whatever your OSS poison may be COULD NOT EXIST without strong
IP rights protection -- what would prevent a company from co-opting a
GNU-protected program and never releasing the code if users could
legally and ethically decide to ignore IP rights.
More information about the sounder