Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 02.06.12 18:51, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:44:59 +0200, darkestkhan <darkestkhan@gmail.com> a écrit:
>> define:fraudulent
>> 1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
>> 2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
>> define:fraud
>> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
>> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
>>
>> So no - you don't "have to be able to keep your customers captive" in order to be fraudulent. Taking someone's else work and saying it is your work is fraud, no matter how small business you are (in fact you don't even have to be business for this to be fraud). Taking some work and not complying with license is also fraud.
>
> That does not change anything to the suspicion raised by an assertion like:
>> There is enough evidence that fraud
>> in business is a reasonable assumption.
>
> (providing I did not erroneously understand, or else, example reasonable assumption would be welcome)

How do you choose a license based on your expectations of
others' behavior?

Investigating authorities regularly publish their findings; the
notion of white-collar crime is substantiated; it's in the news[*];
sometimes staff gets fired for fraud; sometimes they get away with
fraud; sometimes they have made sure there is no legal or illegal
way to catch them (clever? objectionable?); some run away---the
novelists' stereotype is to places like Cayman Islands (would you be
surprised to hear that major investors in some well know companies
in the USA and in Europe work via a chain of agents at least one of
which operates from Cayman Islands?); some will be sued. So, fraud in
business is on file.

Fraud is not unknown, neither are the motive that drive it.
Fraud is one reason why we have licenses in the first place,
because not everyone will act according to standards like
fairness. Not everyone accepts that fairness is a standard,
for a start. Some are actually being payed for finding
legal ways around fairness. (Just a fact, not a value judgment.)
In some cases this behavior creates what is known as a scandal.

So, the above includes some of the cases of fraud in business
and they are only the known ones.

Suppose you want to license some software that you have written.
You consider the future behavior of those who will use your software
in their products. What will they likely do? Will they follow
the license's terms and conditions? What do you want
them to do? Do you care what they do? What are they like?

So what license do you choose if you care about them using
your software?

Very likely, you can start licensing considerations from basic,
statistically verifiable findings about persons. Like this
one: the fraction of persons who will act lawfully regardless of
whether other not others are watching them.


__
[*] Have you heard about Bernie Madoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff