Copyleft Licenses are not _restrictive_ --> That is a good reason to explain why they are ignored
Drew DeVault's Blog is this kind of blog that I really enjoy to read and think. I guess this person takes Philosophy theories a bit more seriously than me, but without denying his style and his preocupation in Open Source Licenses and Software, sometimes I agree with him, while some others, I just feel that The Monkey In Me think it is funny and therefor, a small desire to joke with it. One of the articles is about the Copy-Left, which I play a bit in the article of this blog that I don't remember the name :). Anyway, I remember more or less what I express there: "The Copy-Right" -> Create the notion of giving others to copy, since they have that right, and the Copy-Left, was left away, since the obligation that try to forbid the copy, is not present and by the milenar condition that is normally associated to religions, what is forbidden is the "more desired fruit", which result in being what most people do. Copying what is forbidden to copy. The CopyLeft is not forbidden and therefor, no one copy it.
I think this is really funny, while being a common behavior. Anyway, one of the details that I put in cause on this article, is something about the License of JSON on the MIT license, which say: The Software Shall be used for Good, not Evil. Well, that is part of the duality that is embeded in everything, while the description that point to some direction, doesn't block anything to happen. Almost everything is life, mainly hamanity creations ( excluding guns and bombs ), can be used for Good and for Evil, since they depend on the main intention and not in it's definition of what is acceptable. Is like the principles of justice, while justice can do the same criminals do, putting the legal side in the same position of the illegal one, since both practice the same behaviors. Anyway, the article then talks about Freedom which is a concept that expect responsability. Freedom is as well, something that, those who abuse from others did enjoy, since they were free to produce, whatever they did, being good or evil to many others. I really like the Philosophical idea that describes: "My Freedom ends when Your start", and that is for everything. Therefor, to understand freedom, we need to understand others limits, nothing more. This guy reads more than me and probably is American or English, since his English is 1000000% better than mine. Anyway, if this user read this post somewhere in Time, please remember that I am reading your article from Newsboat application and I open it using w3m. There is no way to comment in his blog using this OLD software. Being Knifes, Chairs, Tables, Computers, Software, Lamps, T-shirts, Cars, TV's, etc, All depend of each one choice, like for everything in Life. So, even if you love God, you need to understand that God give us total freedom of action and choice and therefor, whatever happen in reality is not God Will but Humans Will. So, you can have this moral idea that God would like to see Peace in Reality, but that concept can be impossible to archive since God gave Total freedom of Choice. Do you think that the wars that are happening for centuries is God will? In any case, the Evilness of human Choices is not on Gods Control. That is why I have another article on this blog that is named as: Your Rights. It doesn't matter if I declare something to be posible or not, since everything I could do to block that, I ignore to do, which in this case, was to share the content publicly. Is like the use of guns in America for example. There is a declaration that explicit say: "you can use them", while if you use them, the results of using it, don't depend on those who gave you permission OR not, to use it. It depends only on "you". Nothing more. Is in that perspective that Morality can be in Risk.