Ethics
Philip Herron
Hash: SHA1
Hey guys
Just wondering, with the increasing adoption of GNU/Linux, i guess its
inevitable proprietary software will become increasingly common to the
average users. Do you think this is a problem already, or could be a
problem? Would you still stick with GNU/Linux? Or move to something
like BSD?
Bit of a random question but, i was thinking i don't have a problem so
long as debian still remains in its stance to keeping it free-software
in the base system then anything else you install can be your
responsibility.
- --Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpbal4ACgkQAhcOgIaQQ2H06wCfUHzs+CTyENMRrWE0EFQ4qj1V
nToAn3nmPf2TLhXUEBv9pd7IO+fVHMlN
=IVLe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stuart Hacking
new to Linux. Indeed, in my opinion, requiring that all software on
the OS be free is as limiting as DRM. Richard Stallman desires
"freedom, or else."
The GPL as I see it is ever approaching a dangerous level of unfreedom
and BSD-esque licenses are increasingly alluring. Dual or custom
licensing might become the norm for the foreseeable future.
Just my €0.02
Stuart
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Jul 2009, at 18:09, Philip Herron <herron...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
Philip Herron
Hash: SHA1
Hey
I guess it depends on how much you believe in the freedom. Personaly i
don't like proprietary software at all. Mainly i hate going back to
the day of worrying about serial keys, licenses, adware, adverts, kak
software, software that spend the time to make an entire new windowing
system just to have gold/blue everywhere, lockin, trailing the
Internet for simple software and you have to sign up etc.. bla bla.
I don't mind it coming to linux in some ways but i think i would tend
to move away distros/communities that accept it too much. I don't mind
certain things too much like my nvidia gfx card drivers in my desktop
because they are pretty good quality.
Stuart Hacking wrote:
>
> I don't persoanally see a problem here. Proprietary software is not
> new to Linux. Indeed, in my opinion, requiring that all software on
> the OS be free is as limiting as DRM. Richard Stallman desires
> "freedom, or else."
>
> The GPL as I see it is ever approaching a dangerous level of
> unfreedom and BSD-esque licenses are increasingly alluring. Dual
> or custom licensing might become the norm for the foreseeable
> future.
>
I dont know if thats true, the GPL is freedom. I personally think
software dev doing it open-source is the only right way to do it,
mainly from a technical perspective, but users have a right to know
whats going on with their software, as in privacy/security reasons.
- --Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpb0XUACgkQAhcOgIaQQ2HZHwCcCV1pVtmTZRhaPESolnhomdN8
sdIAnRrGmYHb+HtSoGj7UKpP5+ImUuem
=a7b/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stuart Hacking
>> The GPL as I see it is ever approaching a dangerous level of
>> unfreedom and BSD-esque licenses are increasingly alluring. Dual
>> or custom licensing might become the norm for the foreseeable
>> future.
>>
> I dont know if thats true, the GPL is freedom. I personally think
> software dev doing it open-source is the only right way to do it,
> mainly from a technical perspective, but users have a right to know
> whats going on with their software, as in privacy/security reasons.
What I'm saying here is simply that the GPL is enforced freedom (which
probably came about as a natural defense against proprietary code
taking chunks of open source). In a sense it doesn't feel free to
developers who aren't on Stallman's crusade. The LGPL was something of
a middle ground- I guess it's still used but Stallman discourages it.
- So, the bsd license is more free but you sacrifice security (since
the code has no restriction on use);
- gpl is free but must be used in free apps;
- proprietary is not free (most security, least freedom).
(This model is simplistic, I know), but how 'free'* is judged differs
between the user and developers point of view: a user might love gpl
and bsd because they both offer the same thing- no cost software that
can be shared and perhaps modified. A developer, though, might see
restrictions in both the gpl (restriction on utilisation) and prop
(restriction on freedom); lack of security in bsd et al.
In my view, there isn't a model of licensing that totally hits the
nail on the head yet. I see the case for both OSS and prop.
Too tired, must get breakfast now! :-P
Stuart
* I use the word free and not freedom because freedom implies the
liberal sense. I want to convey any interpretation.
Peter Adams
> Just wondering, with the increasing adoption of GNU/Linux, i guess its
> inevitable proprietary software will become increasingly common to the
> average users. Do you think this is a problem already, or could be a
> problem? Would you still stick with GNU/Linux? Or move to something
> like BSD?
>
> Bit of a random question but, i was thinking i don't have a problem so
> long as debian still remains in its stance to keeping it free-software
> in the base system then anything else you install can be your
> responsibility.
I've no problem with proprietary software. I understand that some
folks want to maintain control over their product and wish to make a
profit. I prefer to use free software but I'll use closed software if
I don't have a free option. When I first started using linux I had to
buy a closed driver for my printer as there were no free ones at the
time. I run a lot of closed source proprietary software via Wine. I
feel no shame in doing so and generally think that Stallman et al
adopt attitudes that harm the public perception of free software and
perpetuate the image of the user base being exclusively for beardy
weird sandal-wearing UFO spotters.
Let's promote free software, but wipe the rabid foam away first.
--
Peter
Stuart Hacking
(years of slacking finally pay off! :-))
http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/90ycb/why_i_algpl/
cheers
Stuart
________________________________________________
...G The Gnome Lord swings a crude dagger
.GG. The Gnome Lord hits
.@.h You die.
..G. Would you like your possessions identified?
Click '@' to find out more.
Glenn Davidson
Philip Herron
> Either way, I'm a fan of using the software that best matches my
> requirements, FOSS or not, as my requirements are not normally
> political. Though TBH, I think using the GPL like a blunt object "to
> keep people honest" is just as insidious as using DRM for the same
> legal purpose; particularly if it gets in the way of the software's
> purpose...
I think these problems with the GPL etc, only arise when it comes to
derivative works. If a project is GPL it is their decision. These lockin
problems to open-source only apply if your a 2nd party is wanting to
make changes and distribute under a new license with a new copyright. So
its only in that light GPL is 'restrictive'. But you have to remember
the original project made the decision to use it for a reason.
Remember the GPL never restricts the end-users thats what matters, only
derivative works, the whole idea is the project doesn't just belong to a
party, it belongs to the community that use it. I still have no problems
with proprietary software, sometimes i forget i play eve-online in wine
etc.. But its only so long as the software is good quality and isn't
restricting, with adverts etc. Much like alot of windows software is
like winamp last i remember had adverts all over the show msn-messenger
etc.
Geoff Macartney
commercial software for the last, er, too many years. From that point of
view the GPL is totally *restrictive*, because, if know I library that
would make life so much easier, but it's GPL, it means I can't use it.
A number of places I've worked for have had a sudden panic attack and
ordered sweeps of the codebase to look for GPL'd 3rdparty software (and
sometimes have found it) because they belated realised there had better
not be any in the commercial s/w they're developing.
So basically I'm all for LGPL, Apache, and the various other licenses
that actually make their product _freer_ (from my point of view) than
GPLed stuff, which, to my mind, is not free at all.
Not that I'm against GPL, don't misunderstand me. It's great for what
it's there for. It's just that what it's there for is not to help me
write commerical software.
Geoff
Geoff Macartney
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 20:59 +0100, Geoff Macartney wrote:
> Not that I'm against GPL, don't misunderstand me. It's great for what
> it's there for. It's just that what it's there for is not to help me
> write commerical software.
To quote:
Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the
ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage
over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while
proprietary developers cannot use it.
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html)
GPL is avowedly _for_ free software developers.
There's lots of good stuff on the matter at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
Geoff
Stuart Hacking
response to Jed Shaw (the one I linked earlier)
This is the pro-BSD version ;-)
http://pwang.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/in-defense-of-bsd-licenses/
Cheers
Stuart
--Sent from my iPhone: thanks for adding functionality, apple.
On 14 Jul 2009, at 21:27, Geoff Macartney
AClearn
>
> http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.htmlhttp://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/90ycb/why_i_algpl/
>
>
Fair enough, he deserves a return for his work but if he had been
"hired as a consultant" would he have sent a percentage of his
earnings to those who helped fix his bugs? Of course in an ideal world
companies using OS should provide staff time to do this, etc.
Marty Pauley
>
> - So, the bsd license is more free but you sacrifice security (since the
> code has no restriction on use);
> - gpl is free but must be used in free apps;
> - proprietary is not free (most security, least freedom).
You must have a very different definition of "security" from me. What
do you mean?
> (This model is simplistic, I know), but how 'free'* is judged differs
> between the user and developers point of view: a user might love gpl and bsd
> because they both offer the same thing- no cost software that can be shared
> and perhaps modified. A developer, though, might see restrictions in both
> the gpl (restriction on utilisation) and prop (restriction on freedom); lack
> of security in bsd et al.
The GPL does not have any restriction on utilisation; it has a
restriction on distribution.
Most users no nothing about how their software is licensed. They will
appreciate the low or zero cost of Free Software, but they will have
the same appreciation for not-Free software that has low or zero cost.
Only developers will care about the license, and some may care enough
to argue about them.
--
Marty
Marty Pauley
Macartney<geoff.m...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> So basically I'm all for LGPL, Apache, and the various other licenses
> that actually make their product _freer_ (from my point of view) than
> GPLed stuff, which, to my mind, is not free at all.
You really need to put statements like that in context. Are you
saying that the GPL is as non-free as the Microsoft licences, for
example?
If you compare the GPL to just the LGPL, Apache, and BSD then it is
more restrictive. But when compared to the whole spectrum of software
licences it is extremely free, so you can't sensibly call it "not free
at all".
--
Marty
Stuart Hacking
On 15 Jul 2009, at 15:36, Marty Pauley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Stuart
> Hacking<stuha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> - So, the bsd license is more free but you sacrifice security
>> (since the
>> code has no restriction on use);
>> - gpl is free but must be used in free apps;
>> - proprietary is not free (most security, least freedom).
>
> You must have a very different definition of "security" from me. What
> do you mean?
Simply, that the developer's code is most secure from theft when it is
hidden. I'm sure there are people who will simply disregard the
license and take the source - sorry for the cynical real world
viewpoint.
My intent was not security for users but for developers. (apparently,
the primary source of debate in this topic).
>
>> (This model is simplistic, I know), but how 'free'* is judged differs
>> between the user and developers point of view: a user might love
>> gpl and bsd
>> because they both offer the same thing- no cost software that can
>> be shared
>> and perhaps modified. A developer, though, might see restrictions
>> in both
>> the gpl (restriction on utilisation) and prop (restriction on
>> freedom); lack
>> of security in bsd et al.
>
> The GPL does not have any restriction on utilisation; it has a
> restriction on distribution.
Again, I'm referring to a developer wishing to use a piece of code.
(See beginning of sentence for further details).
>
> Most users no nothing about how their software is licensed. They will
> appreciate the low or zero cost of Free Software, but they will have
> the same appreciation for not-Free software that has low or zero cost.
This is only sometimes the case, though, as user's often view 'free'
as 'lower quality.'
>
> --
> Marty
Marty Pauley
>
> http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html
His second reason for choosing the GPL looks incorrect. He says "I
almost need companies to have to admit they use my software". But the
GPL does not require users to admit they are using it. (The GPL
doesn't require users to do anything.) If he's just looking for
credit, the BSD licence has attribution requirements. But the GPL
does not require the website that is running his code to mention him.
His fourth reason is also faulty. He says "You now have to tell your
bosses you’re using my gear." It is true that the GPL will force
developers to tell their boss. But BSD, or almost any other licence,
will force them to do this too. It is not an explicit requirement of
those licences, but the fact that all those licences have any
requirements at all will force the developers to tell their boss. And
in this area the additional BSD requirement may turn out to be more
onerous than the GPL ones.
His fifth reason doesn't make sense, and doesn't appear to be an
actual reason. He seems to be saying that he wants to be paid but
he's not willing to charge. GPL, BSD, and most open source licences
allow you to charge whatever you want for your software, so being
"open source" does not mean he can't charge. Does anyone understand
what he's trying to say here?
--
Marty
Marty Pauley
> On 15 Jul 2009, at 15:36, Marty Pauley wrote:
>>
>> You must have a very different definition of "security" from me. What
>> do you mean?
>
> Simply, that the developer's code is most secure from theft when it is
> hidden. I'm sure there are people who will simply disregard the license and
> take the source - sorry for the cynical real world viewpoint.
I agree with your real world viewpoint: most people will disregard the
licence. I think that developers are less likely than users to ignore
the licence, although some will. If you see other developers as your
biggest threat, I now understand what you mean.
Being a amateur pedant I'll have to point out that "theft" of code is
much harder than you may think. I can easily copy your code, but that
is *not* theft. To even get close to being theft I would have to take
a copy and then permanently delete any copies that you have.
Contrary to what is stated by the annoying adverts at the start of the
DVDs, watching "pirated" movies is *not* stealing.
>> Most users no nothing about how their software is licensed. They will
>> appreciate the low or zero cost of Free Software, but they will have
>> the same appreciation for not-Free software that has low or zero cost.
>
> This is only sometimes the case, though, as user's often view 'free' as
> 'lower quality.'
Yes, unfortunately that happens.
--
Marty
Andrew Wilson
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Stuart Hacking<stuha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html
>
> actual reason. He seems to be saying that he wants to be paid but
> he's not willing to charge. GPL, BSD, and most open source licences
> allow you to charge whatever you want for your software, so being
> "open source" does not mean he can't charge. Does anyone understand
> what he's trying to say here?
His fifth reason appears to be, "If you're a company, and you aren't prepared
to use the software under the GPL then you'll have to pay for it". Which
he can achieve with a "GPL and something else" dual licence, but not —
for instance — a "BSD and something else" licence, because the BSD licence
already allows incorporation into proprietary software without requiring the
commercial developer to pay for the privilege.
andrew
Stuart Hacking
On 15 Jul 2009, at 16:35, Marty Pauley wrote:
> ...
> Being a amateur pedant I'll have to point out that "theft" of code is
> much harder than you may think. I can easily copy your code, but that
> is *not* theft. To even get close to being theft I would have to take
> a copy and then permanently delete any copies that you have.
>
> Contrary to what is stated by the annoying adverts at the start of the
> DVDs, watching "pirated" movies is *not* stealing.
> Marty
OK, your point here is valid.
However, what I was stating is the view of software theft as theft of
intellectual property rather than theft of bits. I was not aware that
most developers who choose closed source licenses are actually scared
of losing their bits. (Unless they are male, but that's a different
issue).
Should I have made this explicit? I'm sorry about your condition. :-)
regards,
S.
Geoff Macartney
Sure, of course, compared to the whole spectrum of licences, and in
particular all the proprietary ones, it's very free - but that was the
reason for my qualification "from my point of view", i.e. that of a
developer of proprietary software, which is the context I'm working
from.
So I'm not complaining about the GPL as such, it's just that originally
it took me a bit of time to work out that "free" didn't necessarily mean
free enough for my purposes. You're right, "not free at all" is too
much. "Not free enough" (for me) would be more accurate. But there are
numerous other OSS licences that let me use their facilities in my
software, whose authors don't care whether their stuff is used in "free"
software or not.
Geoff
Colin Turner
Hash: SHA1
Hi Geoff,
Geoff Macartney wrote:
> My take on it is from the perspective of having had to develop
> commercial software for the last, er, too many years. From that point of
> view the GPL is totally *restrictive*, because, if know I library that
> would make life so much easier, but it's GPL, it means I can't use it.
[..]
> Not that I'm against GPL, don't misunderstand me. It's great for what
> it's there for. It's just that what it's there for is not to help me
> write commerical software.
Um. Yes. It's exactly as you say... That *is* what it's there for.
That's the whole *reason* why people like me choose to use the GPL on
some of the software they write, it isn't because I want to help others
base proprietary software on it, but precisely because if anyone was
going to make a killing making a proprietary offering of my code, it
would be me!
I'm not suggesting (as many do) there's anything intrinsically wrong
with making a proprietary product, I respect your, or my freedom to do
that. But I certainly couldn't exploit your proprietary product to make
anything I wanted, free or otherwise, so it's reasonable I should expect
the same protection.
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpiGEgACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZaRhgCfTAQn7Dsu8Jfrx+mCfNnEL4lB
H34AoNz8dBE77jIT4MyZCUlJH4awdcIP
=2AEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Geoff Macartney
known where to start. The problem is the time - outside work I never
seem to have the time to spend on something for myself other than
grabbing an hour here or there. How do you manage to get the time to
write open source stuff?
Geoff
Stuart Hacking
program in work (e.g. Emacs, a small script here or there, maybe a
program that doesn't quite suit your needs)
I have found emacs to be a great tool because you can immediately
begin extending it's functionality with scripts.
Linux, of course, makes it very easy to grab the source of any free
software that already exists within the package manager, then you can
inspect it.
You may not have time to write an entire free application to the tune
of open office, but I'm not sure any one person does. Free software
can succeed simply because many people can make small contributions
whenever possible.
~stuart
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2009, at 23:28, Geoff Macartney
Lee Braiden
> I have found emacs to be a great tool because you can immediately
> begin extending it's functionality with scripts.
I like CPU instructions for a similar reason ;)
--
Lee
Colin Turner
Hash: SHA1
Hi Geoff,
Geoff Macartney wrote:
> I'd love to take some time and write a bit of open software, but I never
> known where to start. The problem is the time - outside work I never
> seem to have the time to spend on something for myself other than
> grabbing an hour here or there. How do you manage to get the time to
> write open source stuff?
As others have said, it's very hard to find the time to write a
reasonably sized FOSS application on your own. I guess it's better to
start contributing by patches to a favourite application. Even that
learning curve can be tough :-).
Personally I find I'm much more productive when working in a team
anyway, because you help to drive each other along. It's harder on your own.
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpkzxAACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZaKxwCeIjSB40Ll4ZpXI3Gpsr9AiwUx
MBcAoI8cG3kjn/NL8OfQ33370Vnaq4iL
=bmVm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Colin Turner
Hash: SHA1
> start contributing by patches to a favourite application. Even that
> learning curve can be tough :-).
Hmm. Not meant to sound condescending by the way... I mean contributing
to a project that normally has little in the way of formal
documentation, coding guidelines and the like can be difficult. It has
certainly prevented me from investing time to patch some things that
have annoyed me in the past.
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpk5bwACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZbmPwCghqq9xjxxJw2RsvvJZ5p7Z8Nc
nSAAoIq3ZAIzElWbrxDYfG+LAVN60cBi
=qP59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Geoff Macartney
Paul Gregg
The principle problem here is the actual use of the word "theft".
"Theft" is a statutory offence in the UK as defined in the Theft Act 1968
which states:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other
of it"
Thus, by definition, IP/Copyright infringement is most definately not any
form of theft and using the word "theft" at all is not only FUD, the
perpetrators of the FUD are telling blatent lies.
I hope it is clear that your correction of "theft of intellectual property"
is also erroneous. Marty's original scenario would have to be true
(permanently depriving the owner of the IP from that IP) for it to be
"theft of intellectual property".
Copyright Infringement / IP laws exist for a reason - if we could classify
it as theft, then we wouldn't need IP laws at all.
So now that's clear, let's stop using the word theft when talking about
copyrights. :)
PG
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Colin Turner
Hash: SHA1
Hi Paul,
Paul Gregg wrote:
>> However, what I was stating is the view of software theft as theft of
>> intellectual property rather than theft of bits. I was not aware that
>> most developers who choose closed source licenses are actually scared
>> of losing their bits. (Unless they are male, but that's a different
>> issue).
>
> The principle problem here is the actual use of the word "theft".
>
> "Theft" is a statutory offence in the UK as defined in the Theft Act 1968
> which states:
> "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property
> belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other
> of it"
>
> Thus, by definition, IP/Copyright infringement is most definately not any
It's worth pointing out in passing that dictionaries define words, Acts
only define the legal interpretation of them as it currently exists, and
indeed dictionaries only define common usage for that matter. This
thread is discussing ethics, which may or may not intersect with the law
:-).
When I turn to my OED:
"Theft, n 1 the act or an instance of stealing 2 Law dishonest
appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of
it permanently."
You are using case 2, perhaps Stuart is using case 1. FWIW, when I check
the definition stealing what is being discussed could definitely fit
those words. So he is perfectly and reasonably entitled to use those
words if he uses that interpretation, at least here, if not in a court
of law, IANAL.
> form of theft and using the word "theft" at all is not only FUD, the
> perpetrators of the FUD are telling blatent lies.
It's not surprising that when the phrase "intellectual property" is
used, that people extend the word theft to it.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you, or Marty are attempting
to put forward, but I think this sentence is unhelpful in the sense that
we should assume everyone on the list is debating things in good faith,
and as such phrases like "blatant lies" for a position that might be
more mistaken than mischievous is unhelpful. Better to argue that they
are mistaken in your opinion, no?
> So now that's clear, let's stop using the word theft when talking about
> copyrights. :)
As above, neither you, nor anyone else can tell Stuart he is not
reasonably using the phrase according to its dictionary definition. We
can debate the appropriateness of a word in terms of the associations it
carries with it, but that's all.
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpwazwACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZao+QCgmfUpV47TpzSWTZdcw3ip9pD1
Kr8An27KbjccS/AuGNIReSqxSp48wz+J
=igYP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lee Braiden
> It's worth pointing out in passing that dictionaries define words, Acts
> only define the legal interpretation of them as it currently exists, and
> indeed dictionaries only define common usage for that matter. This
> thread is discussing ethics, which may or may not intersect with the law
> :-).
> "Theft, n 1 the act or an instance of stealing 2 Law dishonest
> appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of
> it permanently."
>
> You are using case 2, perhaps Stuart is using case 1. FWIW, when I check
> the definition stealing what is being discussed could definitely fit
> those words. So he is perfectly and reasonably entitled to use those
> words if he uses that interpretation, at least here, if not in a court
> of law, IANAL.
No. The problem is that, in copying digital information, one is
reproducing a work using one's own power, one's own internet connection,
etc. No theft of property or even raw materials from the "owner" occurs.
No theft from wider society occurs either --- in fact, one is still
contributing to society in very real ways by paying for power, etc.
Likely, one is also using the information for some societal goal, such
as remixing it creatively and sharing with friends. Therefore, even
attempting to make an argument that, in a wider sense, something has
been taken, is deeply wrong.
It's also highly arguable whether information, even in principle, can
belong to anyone, or if, in fact, it belongs to humanity as a whole. If
you believe your information belongs to you alone, I'd like to see how
you arrived at that information, without using the information
contributed by many generations before you. Note that you'll probably
have to include how you arrived at the language and concepts you're using.
--
Lee
Colin Turner
Hash: SHA1
Hi Lee,
Lee Braiden wrote:
>> indeed dictionaries only define common usage for that matter. This
>> thread is discussing ethics, which may or may not intersect with the law
>> :-).
> I agree so far.
:-)
>> "Theft, n 1 the act or an instance of stealing 2 Law dishonest
>> appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of
>> it permanently."
>>
>> You are using case 2, perhaps Stuart is using case 1. FWIW, when I check
>> the definition stealing what is being discussed could definitely fit
>> those words. So he is perfectly and reasonably entitled to use those
>> words if he uses that interpretation, at least here, if not in a court
>> of law, IANAL.
>
> No. The problem is that, in copying digital information, one is
> reproducing a work using one's own power, one's own internet connection,
> etc. No theft of property or even raw materials from the "owner" occurs.
Since we're talking about the implications of language here, "No." is a
definite word that suggests that my opinion has no validity compared to
yours, but it does, and so does yours.
Look up the dictionary definition of stealing. I'm afraid it could
easily encompass the unauthorized copying of someone else's digital
information. I've left work, so don't have it in front of me, but that
is the case.
> No theft from wider society occurs either --- in fact, one is still
> contributing to society in very real ways by paying for power, etc.
That, I think, is actually beside the point. It doesn't impact upon the
definition of theft that another person can take.
> Likely, one is also using the information for some societal goal, such
> as remixing it creatively and sharing with friends. Therefore, even
> attempting to make an argument that, in a wider sense, something has
> been taken, is deeply wrong.
Again, that is IMO beside the point. Is Microsoft allowed to violate my
GPL in what they believe to be a greater good? I don't think so.
Let's put it another way, if we don't use the word "theft" what other
word is appropriate?
Essentially what you seem to be saying is what worries me about the
argument of the semantics. In attempting to avoid the use of the word
theft people are perhaps avoiding its connotations.
But is it ethical to take an authorised copy of someone else's work? I
don't think it is, I don't think it's moral. I realise that's the
cornerstone of the GPL and free licenses as well as proprietary ones.
> It's also highly arguable whether information, even in principle, can
> belong to anyone, or if, in fact, it belongs to humanity as a whole. If
> you believe your information belongs to you alone, I'd like to see how
> you arrived at that information, without using the information
> contributed by many generations before you.
That's not remotely how it works however, it's not random "information",
it's collections of new information, new synthesis and so on. Albert
Einstein *was* the author of the theory of General Relativity, it was
*his* idea, based on many others of course.
I of course, in the finest scientific tradition relied on thousands of
years of past history to generate the thoughts that formed my PhD
thesis, and yes, I believe that to be *mine*; based on the work of
others, and now available for the use of others (by *my* choice) but the
very fact that the knowledge was original and substantive is the total
basis of how I, and others are awarded doctoral degrees in the first
place, and that's an old idea too!
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpweTsACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZZYJQCguhnS3TAKlNT+vKECGqu3zSB0
cw0AoI2GkV682wQCaiLzcW/+mZC5SXsE
=k4bP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan
their seeming interchangibility. Can I direct you towards my "rant" on
my blog http://danmacs.blogspot.com/2009/04/piracy-garrrr.html as you
can likely see from the title, it's directed largely towards piracy of
Media (audio visual etc) but the sentiments are there. Stop using a
word that is completely wrong according to the law statutes. Fraud
perhaps could be strained to relate to piracy but theft? or
"Downloading a movie/software/song is stealing"? I don't think so.
Colin Turner
Hash: SHA1
Hi Dan,
I liked your blog article :-). I notice you don't condone copying media,
so please consider much of what is below as general contributions to the
thread rather than just a direct reply (and I'll get bored of it all
real soon now, I assure you).
> I agree completely with your sentiments about theft/copyright and
> their seeming interchangibility. Can I direct you towards my "rant" on
> my blog http://danmacs.blogspot.com/2009/04/piracy-garrrr.html as you
> can likely see from the title, it's directed largely towards piracy of
> Media (audio visual etc) but the sentiments are there. Stop using a
> word that is completely wrong according to the law statutes. Fraud
> perhaps could be strained to relate to piracy but theft? or
> "Downloading a movie/software/song is stealing"? I don't think so.
I too dislike watching the trailer before films I have, partly because
it's very over the top, I agree, and also because I'm the one who
actually bought it. Yes. I *buy* stuff I want. If I can't afford it, I
go without it.
Again, it comes down to a dictionary... *I* greatly dislike the use of
the word "piracy" in this context, because, as you point out it
conflates two hugely different issues. However, if someone wants to use
that word they can, it's in the dictionary with that specific meaning. I
can say I'd prefer they didn't use that word, and I can explain why, but
I can't tell they have no right to or that they're wrong. They're not.
Similarly, I've checked several dictionaries now, and if someone wants
to talk about copyright "violation" as theft, they can. There's a lot of
different definitions of stealing. That's their right. It's a slightly
separate issue from the ethics. After all we probably agree Robin Hood
(yes I know) "stole from the rich to give to the poor", and it was
appropriate. And again, although this is not a legal discussion, I
strongly suspect that a lot of defences made in this forum would
evaporate if you offered them in court.
If I was a born again Christian I could complain if someone used the
word "excruciating" when they stubbed their toe, because to conflate a
word that use to specifically mean the pain of crucifixion with such a
minor thing might be inappropriate to me. But we don't get to tell
people how *they* can use words, we only get to choose how *we* do. I
use GNU/Linux (mostly), other's don't. I can't make them.
Lots of things have an intrinsic and extrinsic value. The Ł5 note in
your pocket has an extrinsic value, the paper isn't the thing, it
represents something more intangible. So the reasoning in this thread is
that because physical things have intrinsic value, taking them without
authorisation is stealing. But not so for "virtual" things. But the Ł5
note is virtual.
Of course I get it that less tangible things are easy to copy, there
might not even be a cost to copy them. But I guess we all agree that
just because a Ł5 actually costs 1p or whatever, doesn't give you a
right to reproduce it at will because you don't like the fact you need 5
pound coins to buy one.
The fact that you believe the person holding what you want is being
unreasonable in not letting you copy it for free, doesn't give you the
right to disrespect that. It's his choice, not yours. Either the thing
he has is of no value to you, in which case you wouldn't want it, or it
has a value to you. In that case it is reasonable for that person to
negotiate with you over some exchange for that. If you don't like the
price, or it's not worth that price, walk away! The fact you don't like
it doesn't factor in. It might be different if you were a mother with a
starving child negotiating the price of a bread roll in a slum. I'm
guessing none of us really identify with that level of need and injustice.
Virtually everyone on this list, to some level or another, makes a
living, i.e. earns money to put bread in their mouths, by producing
intangible things, and whether they choose to give this away or not,
it's the copyright system that protects them.
In the FOSS spectrum, the free software people are the ethics people,
the open source the pragmatists. A generalisation I know. We certainly
believe ourselves to be much more ethical that various MegaCorp (TM).
Yet... we expect them to abide by the rules of copyright when it comes
to the GPL, but don't think we have any obligation to abide by theirs? I
can assure you, they don't like our terms, but so what? We don't tell
them it's OK to take our work because they think we are unreasonable or
our price (making their code GPL) is too high for them.
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpxjBQACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZYH9wCeLUDmgFUQ0NudM4U1c3IU7nyE
0bMAoIOw5itgi6w+OAmYoCaE3CSiRDpl
=gDZU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----