Sure, you can have a.

Louato: Kment: you can license it to other people.

Gasque: Kment: sorry, but you don’t know what freedom of speech means.

Leistner: Kment:

Kment: So you linked me that?

Mcclure: You might also read the constitution, if you live in the USA. If you live in another country, you either don’t have free speech anyway, or the definition differs. But it always involves the government

Dais: Dekok: Freedom of Speech != First Amendment though.

Swarthout: Havvy: it’s not, but it’s defined there. And other places define it differently

Jeane: What if a famous speaker is giving a Free Speech at the local library?

Jennison: Dekok: the constitution and constitutional law are two different things. Just reading the constitution gives you no insight into whether the constitution prohibits or permits a particular thing

Crossman: Dekok: you have to read the previous case law

Angst: It’s like that telephone game I played in elementary school

Bruemmer: Everything’s based on the last person’s interpretation of it

Kment: I’m still not sure why you linked me to a comic strip talking about not conflating free speech with a right to not be offended

Kment: Please don’t tell me I don’t understand something and then use as your proof something that doesn’t even reflect what I’m talking about

Kment: I am also talking about morality and you suddenly turned it into who understands laws as they are applied better. I’m not sure where that came from, but yes you get to have more information on something when the subject is changed midway

Kment: Nothing’s wrong with proprietary software if you see it as software whose inner workings are trade secrets. What I’m disagreeing with morally is the ability to relegate the cost of keeping your secrets to everyone else. That is what getting the courts involved does in any case of licensing issues or intellectual property

Gendusa: Usman: late reply, but thanks!

Kment: So when you say you have open source software but your license restricts my use. That is like telling me God has a phone number and then suing me for calling him

Kment: That’s how the world works, yes, but completely stupid and immoral

Eagleson: Kment: “immoral” for who?

Dais: Morality is subjective. Ethics is less subjective.

Kment: If you want to figure out how to keep your software proprietary, do it on your own dime, not the public’s. Make sure your employees aren’t gonna leak it. Only give users front end access, etc

Viken: Still subjective though

Mehlman: Yes. There are trash human beings who think that abortions are bad, gay marriage is bad.

Obaker: They say it’s bad in the name of “morality”

Kment: Go look up the actual tenants of modern satanism. Number one or two of maybe four or five total is that morality is subjective

Apela: Also god. but that’s another story

Dais: Over by an abortion clinic in my city there’s a van that has pictures of aborted fetusi.

Benigni: The concept of “morality” itself is pretty much meaningless in these discussions

Dais: But anyways, we’re completely off topic.

Leicht: Kment: if morality is subjective, how do you expect us to take an absolute statement such as “proprietary software is morally wrong” seriously?

Kampen: I couldnt bother some folk on JS could i?

Kment: Dekok: you said morality is subjective. I have not

Kment: That’s something you’re presupposing which is completely not self evident

Bethers: Ill probabaly do a terrible job of explaining this

Harshaw: Alovelylad: Try anyway

Tarkey: Kment: the word is defined as “a set of *personal* beliefs of right/wrong”

Roufs: It can’t be anything but subjective

Soderstrom: Sure, you can have a different definition of “morality,” which is not the socially accepted one. But then using that word in this context means we have a communication problem