[Upd-discuss] Re: [Upd-board] "Development", "freedom", and UPD's objectives

[Peter Eckersley]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 11:34:08PM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> You've suggested that the UPD should try to work out a "balance"
> between these ideas before proceeding to do anything else.  That would
> mean putting our aims on hold until we solve the deepest problems of
> the philosophy of ethics.
> 
> Those who would like to work on a general philosophy of ethics instead
> are of course welcome to do so.  But the UPD has a practical mission,
> to protect and enhance the public domain.  Let's not take a detour to
> theoretical problems that we probably can't solve.

I think you misunderstood my intention.

I agree that we can't really solve the underlying ethical problem and I
wasn't suggesting that we turn UPD into a philosophical research
institution.  But the problem affects us, as is indicated by the fact
that we've had many discussions and a few debates in which these issues
are at work.  It's possible that they have already been slowing us
down or distracting us.  This can only get more pronounced as the
organisation grows.

So I was suggesting that we try to pick a set of principles which is
flexible enough that it includes most of our agreed concerns, and sets
them out explicitly, so that both members and others dealing with our
organisation know what they are.  

Ideally, such a statement would would make it much easier for people to
check that a particular communication or proposal is consistent with
UPD's principles.

-- 
Peter Eckersley
Department of Computer Science   &                  mailto:pde@cs.mu.oz.au 
IP Research Institute of Australia             http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde
The University of Melbourne