It's not splitting hairs at all. The two represent diametrically opposite degrees of moral achievement.
"Do no evil" is a declaration of hubris or wilful blindness: no moral agent fails to do evil at times. An entity that did no evil would necessarily be incorruptible, immune to dilemmas, and in most ethical systems, omniscient as well.
"Don't be evil" is an almost comically low bar. Almost nobody other than comic-book villains, and perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer and certain pedophile priests, is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by. The only reason it's even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. "Don't be evil" is satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement.
In short, the distinction between the meanings of the two phrases could hardly be more pronounced.
Anyone who claims that Google aspires to "do no evil" is excluding themselves from any serious discussion.
"Do no evil" is a declaration of hubris or wilful blindness: no moral agent fails to do evil at times. An entity that did no evil would necessarily be incorruptible, immune to dilemmas, and in most ethical systems, omniscient as well.
"Don't be evil" is an almost comically low bar. Almost nobody other than comic-book villains, and perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer and certain pedophile priests, is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by. The only reason it's even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. "Don't be evil" is satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement.
In short, the distinction between the meanings of the two phrases could hardly be more pronounced.
Anyone who claims that Google aspires to "do no evil" is excluding themselves from any serious discussion.