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