To my knowledge, anarchism does not require abandoning use of violence
under all circumstances.

If one interprets the GPL violator as breaching contract with the creator
of the software, then use of violence to prohibit continued breach seems
like an act many anarchists would find acceptable.

Whether the violence is ultimately exercised by the creator, or
a third party like the state, seems quite immaterial to the question
of the legitimacy of the violence itself.

best
Bedeho


On 14 December 2013 11:19, Mike Gogulski <mike@???> wrote:

> On 12/14/2013 12:37 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> > We can link together, pool resources and build common
> > infrastructure while securing a dignified existence for ourselves.
>
> I submit that attaching a threat to use (state) violence against people
> who use that common infrastructure out of conformance with the author's
> /diktat/ is itself undignified. Exceedingly so.
>
> > Or we can lock ourselves away, fight against each other, erect walls and
> > put our trust into central power which derives its legitimacy and
> > consent through the front of authority.
>
> This is exactly what folks who apply state-backed copyleft licensing
> like the GPL to their creations are doing. The GPL relies fundamentally
> upon that illegitimate, unsupportable, justly-hated central authority
> for its very wording.
>
> Amir, when you find someone using your GPL-branded code having stripped
> the licensing and attribution from it and without having released the
> source code, are you going to personally threaten that person with
> physical harm? Call the police? Call a lawyer? If you're not willing to
> take such steps, then you have no need of the GPL. And if you are
> willing to do so, a tribunal will be convened to consider the revocation
> of your anarchism merit badge.
>
> Peace,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>