I think you've got it backwards; In GPL, every developer is a user. This becomes apparent when you see why the GPL came into existence and what it sets out to accomplish (Safe guarding users' freedoms at the expense of the developers').
And GP's point is that a) statistically speaking, pretty much all of the users of software today are non-developers, and b) these users don't care about the freedoms that the GPL seeks to protect. Even in the small subset of users that are developers, the popularity of permissive licenses indicates that most would rather just use and open up source code without worrying about restrictions imposed by others or imposing restrictions on others out of some sense of morality.
The upshot is that the GPL just creates additional friction for developers in the pursuit of ideals that, statistically speaking, nobody really cares about. This is why it is misguided.
The primary purpose of the GPL is to insure that users have the freedom to modify and redistribute the software they use should they choose to do so. Whether the user does so or not is irreverent. That's why I don't think it's a matter of whether end users care, or how large of a percentage they form of the overall user base.
Developers who decide to license their work under the GPL do so to safeguard their own freedom and the freedom of their users. To that end, I think the GPL hits its mark.
Based on your statement, the correct conclusion would be that no /innocent/ person should be imprisoned, ever. (To which I agree).
Torture, like drone murders, false convictions, does and will continue to effect many, many innocent people. It's a matter of moral; is it acceptable to to torture/kill innocent people to accomplish an object or not.
Personally, I cannot for the life of me justify torture. Torture, unlike ending someone's life, is something the victim will have to live through, and possible, with, for the rest of his life.
It's disgusting to do this to any living thing, let alone a human being.
>Based on your statement, the correct conclusion would be that no /innocent/ person should be imprisoned, ever. (To which I agree).
But the OP was trying to extrapolate from there to "so no one should be tortuted (simply to avoid doing so to an innocent)", and that inference is what I was criticizing.
Personally, I cannot for the life of me justify imprisonment. Imprisonment, unlike ending someone's life, is something the victim will have to live through, and possible[sic], with, for the rest of his life.
note: this is not a statement of my actual beliefs, but a foil to show the error of the post I am responding to.
