On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause
doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to
educational resources for free to the world's least economically
fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
It could be the time to start talking
globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble
initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating
countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you
can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some
/other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc