[...] and in
Dave's case, it's his freaking software. He can do
with it whatever he likes.
Absolutely. But, conversely, if we (FSVO
"we") want to think less
of him for choosing that way, that's up to us.
But why should you put a moral
bent on a personal choice?
Because it's a choice which I believe does harm to
the state of the
art, making it a Bad Thing to do.
IOW, you're saying it's OK to be a bigot.
If you count bias against people who do things which harm society as
bigotry, then yes, I believe it's OK to be a bigot. (Whether this case
is an example, that's a different question.)
You seem to think that process is worth more than result, i.e., because he
released a working and useful product (including to ingrates like Tony
Duell -- "I know whom not to trust" indeed) in a way alien to what you think
constitutes being a good neighbour, it is therefore automatically a Bad
Thing.
This is the same kind of specious crap I get when people ask me why I
won't use GPL (except in cases where I modify a project under the GPL,
because then I'm stuck).
As someone else pointed out in this case, it's, "I don't like the taste of
this free beer." The application of the word 'polemic' is entirely
appropriate.
It's his
software, plain & simple. He has the right to do with it as
he wishes, bar none, and that's that.
Here again, I see "it's his right to do that" being used as if it
implied "it's not a bad thing for him to do that". As I explained in
another message, I do not agree with that leap.
But you *do* seem to concur with 'it's a bad thing for him to do that ==
it's *not* his right to do that' -- or you would have let him.
So, as Roger said, why should you put a moral bent on a personal choice?
Because that's exactly what you're doing.
--
--------------------------------- personal:
http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *
www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at
floodgap.com
-- If everyone is abnormal, then no one is. -----------------------------------