On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote: I imagine
most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority disagree with them.
Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are.
Accept that they've lost the argument and move on.
This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all - arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as which position more people agree with.
(This is assuming only options actually legal
under the license are considered.)
I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't sufficient.
How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it.
I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think it's subjective at all.