www/server/staging the-moral-and-the-legal.html

[Jing Luo]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Jing Luo <jing> 24/01/16 09:56:16

Modified files:
        server/staging : the-moral-and-the-legal.html 

Log message:
        change by rms (www-discuss 2024-01-16), punctuations and styles by 
Thérèse

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/staging/the-moral-and-the-legal.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3

Patches:
Index: the-moral-and-the-legal.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/staging/the-moral-and-the-legal.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- the-moral-and-the-legal.html        16 Jan 2024 04:02:22 -0000      1.2
+++ the-moral-and-the-legal.html        16 Jan 2024 14:56:16 -0000      1.3
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.99 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
-<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays upholding action" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>The Moral and the Legal
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
 
 <p>The legal level is about what current laws require.  When we in the free
 software movement make a legal argument, that is what we are arguing about.
-However, the moral level is what matters most &mdash; it is where our goals
+However, the moral level is what matters most&mdash;it is where our goals
 come from.  Liberty resides at that level, which is why we also call it
 &ldquo;libre&rdquo; software.</p>
 
@@ -33,50 +33,55 @@
 <p>There is a pervasive tendency, especially in the US, to assume that laws
 dictate right and wrong.  If we in the free software movement post articles or
 letters that discuss only the legal level, readers will tend to assume we
-agree with that assumption &mdash; that what we judge by is legality above
+agree with that assumption&mdash;that what we judge by is legality above
 all, so that if an action is lawful we are unable to criticize it.</p>
 
 <p>Since our overall purpose is to end the lawful but unjust computing
-practices (nonfree software and SaaSS) because we judge morally that they are
+practices (nonfree software and <a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">SaaSS</a>) because
+we judge morally that they are
 unjust, we must show we do not define morality as &ldquo;not breaking any
-laws&rdquo;.  We need to keep reminding the public to pay attention to the
-deeper level, which is the moral level.  If in a communication we focus on the
+laws.&rdquo;  We need to keep reminding the public to pay attention to the
+deeper level, which is the moral level.  If, in a communication, we focus on 
the
 shallow aspects alone, we miss an opportunity to show the public our deeper
 message.  Because some readers are interested only in the legalities, we must
 show we don't consider those to be paramount.</p>
 
 <p>In some cases, we contend, morality and legality say opposite things.  In
 the US, distributing a program that can break DRM is illegal; the companies
-that implement DRM point to this and hope you will confuse legality with
+that implement DRM point to this, and hope you will confuse legality with
 morality.  We are careful not to get confused that way.  Breaking DRM is
-morally admirable; what's immoral is to <b>implement</b> DRM.</p>
+morally admirable; what's immoral is to <em>implement</em> DRM.</p>
 
 <p>In anything we publish, and anything we send to strangers (they might
 redistribute it to the public), we have to show that our views about issues
 are primarily based on the moral level.  Even when the immediately crucial
 part is at the legal level, we must show how we judge programs, and laws
 themselves, at the moral level.  Thus, when people ask whether a program
-follows the <i>XYZ</i> law, we can say, &ldquo;we believe it does &mdash; and,
+follows the <i>XYZ</i> law, we can say, &ldquo;We believe it does&mdash;and,
 most importantly, it respects users' freedom.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>Presenting the two levels in relation to each other is a very good way of
 showing them both, and also showing how they are related.  For instance, when
 speaking for the FSF, it can be useful to say, &ldquo;Your program <i>FOO</i>
 contains part of the source code of <i>GNU BAR</i>&rdquo; (a legal issue)
-&ldquo;and fails to follow the GNU GPL rules&rdquo; (a legal issue) &ldquo;and
-it treats the users unjustly because you release it as nonfree software&rdquo;
-(the deeper moral issue).  &ldquo;To ensure all users of code from <i>GNU
-BAR</i> enjoy the four freedoms for it&rdquo; (the goal at the moral level),
-&ldquo;we invoke our copyright to require you to stop distributing the code
-that way&rdquo; (using legal power as a tool to achieve the moral goal).</p>
+&ldquo;and fails to follow the GNU GPL rules&rdquo; (a legal issue),
+&ldquo;and that denies other users some of the rights they are entitled
+to&rdquo; (the deeper moral issue).  &ldquo;To ensure all users of code
+from <i>GNU BAR</i> fully enjoy the four freedoms for it&rdquo; (the goal at
+the moral level), &ldquo;we invoke our copyright to require you to stop
+distributing the code that way&rdquo; (using legal power as a tool to achieve
+the moral goal).</p>
 
 <p>That is not the only way to present them both.  In other contexts, not the
 FSF, you might need to say something very different.  The main thing is to
 remember to talk about the moral level often, so readers realize it is the
 deeper and more important of the two levels.</p>
 
+<div class="announcement" role="complementary">
 <p>See also <a href="/philosophy/compromise.html">Avoiding Ruinous
 Compromises</a>.</p>
+</div>
 
 </div><!-- end of "article reduced-width" -->
 
@@ -137,7 +142,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2024/01/16 04:02:22 $
+$Date: 2024/01/16 14:56:16 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>