Objectivism and Open-Source
Shlomi Fish
http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/philosophy/obj-oss/obj-oss/book1.html
for an essay I wrote about Open Source according to Objectivism.
I am both an Objectivist and an Open Source user, developer and
advocate, and wanted to make sure Objectivists don't view the Open
Source movement as anti-Capitalistic in nature.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
John VanSickle
Why would we? If a man wants to give away his work, that's his right.
If he contracts to give away his work, that's his business.
Regards,
John
Joe Bagadonuts
OSS. Politically, Objectivism says that's it's OK to voluntarily give away
the fruits of your labor. IOW, "We won't stop you". Morally, however, you
are sacrificificing yourself and your efforts to others. This would be
antithical to Objectivist morality.
The rub raised by OSS advocates is that by participating in the development
of OSS solutions you will eventually be compensated in the service area,
i.e. , enough consumers will recognize the excellence of your efforts and
hire you to further developed your brain-storms. But, there's little
evidence to support this. Through the efforts of MS, Apple, IBM, et al,
customers expections have been raised to the point of insisting that their
software just works. Presently, OSS can't do that. And if OSS solution
actually did that, there would no reason for the customer to seek you out.
jk
"Shlomi Fish" <shl...@vipe.stud.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
news:deca99a9.04011...@posting.google.com...
Kaz Kylheku
.476$p07....@eagle.america.net>...
> It is my understanding that Ayn Rand would neither sanction nor objected to
> OSS. Politically, Objectivism says that's it's OK to voluntarily give away
> the fruits of your labor. IOW, "We won't stop you". Morally, however, you
> are sacrificificing yourself and your efforts to others. This would be
> antithical to Objectivist morality.
>
> The rub raised by OSS advocates is that by participating in the development
> of OSS solutions you will eventually be compensated in the service area,
> i.e. , enough consumers will recognize the excellence of your efforts and
> hire you to further developed your brain-storms. But, there's little
> evidence to support this. Through the efforts of MS, Apple, IBM, et al,
> customers expections have been raised to the point of insisting that their
> software just works. Presently, OSS can't do that. And if OSS solution
> actually did that, there would no reason for the customer to seek you out.
You do know that for some decade and a half, Apple was unable to
produce a stable operating system for their own machines? They finally
caved in and based their new OS on pieces like FreeBSD UNIX and the
Mach kernel.
IBM? Why they have nothing to do with GNU/Linux at all, right? ;)
In terms of usability, OSS has advanced to the point that someone
without a computer science degree can pop in a CD-ROM, install and
operating system and use it.
Remember, open source systems still by and large have the disadvantage
of not being preinstalled on consumer hardware. Of course the
Microsoft-based system just works out of the box, because someone else
assembled the unit, installed everything on it, and produced an
overall working configuration.
Kaz Kylheku
1.546...@hotmail.com>...
But that doesn't mean we can't form a view about what he is doing and
comment about it.
But is that Open Source developer really laboring without
compensation? That is not true. Is he or she giving anything away?
That might not be true either.
To truly give away your intellectual work, you must assign it to the
public domain, thereby retaining none of the copyrights whatsoever.
There are some developers who do this, but not all. For example, by
means of most prominent free software license, the GNU Public License,
the developer retains all of the rights over his original work. He can
do whatever he wants, such as release the work as completely
proprietary, compiled software accompanied by a strict EULA.
Proponents of such licensing sometimes criticize programmers who
distribute their code using much more liberal licensing, such as the
BSD license. Their criticisms are not all that far from Objectivist
morality, the concern being that the liberal license encourages
mooching. Paradoxically, the very programmer who developed the code
may find himself in the situation of licensing binaries, and agreeing
to an end-user license that restricts his copying and use of his own
code, for whose development he wasn't compensated. Preventing this
kind of absurdity is what the GNU license is about.
Furthermore, is there really no compensation? Is free software
development completely altruistic? That is hardly the case.
Firstly, if nothing else, there is a genuine pleasure in writing
software. It is both the pleasure of creating, and of improving one's
skills and intellect. People write programs in their spare time
because it makes them happy. Since happiness is the moral purpose of
human life, they are well-aligned with the Objectivist philosophy in
this regard.
Secondly, writing a program compensates a programmer in this way: the
program solves the problem that it was intended to solve. A lot of
free programs are written because the author was not able to find an
existing solution to some problem. The program will compensate the
author for the time spent writing it because it will solve that
problem. Sometimes it is worthwhile to write a ``throwaway'' program
that will just run once to produce a solution, but programs are
typically run many times to provide a continuous, repeated benefit.
Allowing other people to have copies of that program does not erode
the benefit of having that problem solved for oneself. In fact, if
those other people find bugs and improve it, all the better.
Thirdly, writing a program is a way of compensating other programmers
for having used their programs. As a user of free operating systems, I
have saved tens of thousands of dollars over the span of more than a
decade. If I make some small contribution myself, it does not even
begin to cover the benefit I have received. So I can't possibly
pretend that I'm sacrificing myself, when in fact I am indebted.
Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work. Programmers
who work exclusively for software corporations under salary or
contract have no ownership of the code that they produce. When they
move on, all they have is an entry in their resume, and some
references which decay over time. Even fresh references are second
hand information. I trust a page of code more than someone's assurance
that Joe Programmer is a good worker. Your resume may say that ten
years ago, you worked on such and such a proprietary program. The
problem is that nobody remembers that program, and the people who
managed that project have scattered to the four corners of the earth.
Perhaps the company doesn't even exist any longer. On the other hand,
open source programs stick with you. You have the code! It follows you
when you change jobs. Nobody but you can cancel these projects. They
can live and improve with time. When you are looking for new
contracts, you can say: ``I wrote this open source program ten years
ago, and now it's in faily wide use. I'm still the chief maintainer
and keep improving it. You can download it and look the source code.
Moreover, there is an entire mailing list history, bug database, and
version control history, and other tangibles related to that project,
from which you can see how I communicate with others and how I conduct
the overall process of development.'' In other words, free software
work establishes you as an individual with your own ideas. You are
like Hank Rearden with his formula for Rearden Metal, or John Galt and
his motor.
Lastly, sometimes open source programs, in the long term, turn into a
nice start-up business for their authors. And by that I don't just
mean the ``software as a service'' business of performing
customizations to a free program under contract.
Shayne Wissler
"Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Preventing this
> kind of absurdity is what the GNU license is about.
The GNU license is about undermining intellectual property. It's about
Marxism. It's an evil license.
> Furthermore, is there really no compensation? Is free software
> development completely altruistic? That is hardly the case.
>
> Firstly, if nothing else, there is a genuine pleasure in writing
> software.
This is an invalid point. It's enjoyable to do all manner of productive
activity. That doesn't mean one should do it for free. Indeed, if you really
like doing it, you should try to get paid so that you can do more of it.
> Secondly, writing a program compensates a programmer in this way: the
> program solves the problem that it was intended to solve. A lot of
> free programs are written because the author was not able to find an
> existing solution to some problem.
This is an irrelevant point: he can solve the problem without giving his
source away.
> Allowing other people to have copies of that program does not erode
> the benefit of having that problem solved for oneself. In fact, if
> those other people find bugs and improve it, all the better.
True, but again, not relevant. There's no need to make the source "open" as
in "perpetually free." One could make it "free for all who submit
improvements", and charge mere users a fee, or some such.
> Thirdly, writing a program is a way of compensating other programmers
> for having used their programs. As a user of free operating systems, I
> have saved tens of thousands of dollars over the span of more than a
> decade. If I make some small contribution myself, it does not even
> begin to cover the benefit I have received. So I can't possibly
> pretend that I'm sacrificing myself, when in fact I am indebted.
This altruism.
> Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
> Lastly, sometimes open source programs, in the long term, turn into a
> nice start-up business for their authors. And by that I don't just
> mean the ``software as a service'' business of performing
> customizations to a free program under contract.
Ditto.
Shayne Wissler
Tim Skirvin
>Check this URL:
>http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/philosophy/obj-oss/obj-oss/book1.html
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cancel this, as it's about Our
Favorite Banned Group. (Which saddens me, since I actually find the
conversation interesting, given how much open-source software I've
written...but that's neither here nor there). So...don't do that.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, humanities.philosophy.objectivism
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/current/ Skirv's Current Life
dave odden
> I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cancel this, as it's about Our
> Favorite Banned Group. (Which saddens me, since I actually find the
> conversation interesting, given how much open-source software I've
> written...but that's neither here nor there). So...don't do that.
What's the reasoning here? The discussion here does not in any way touch on
or mention the group. Is it the fact that the post contains a URL with a
link pertaining to them? It hadn't occurred to me that that would be banned,
so perhaps the FAQ needs to be rephrased if the intent is to ban URL's that
refer to banned material, i.e. this is a second-order ban.
John Shafto
<k...@ashi.footprints.net> tippety tapped:
> Joe Bagadonuts <joebagad...@america.net> wrote in message news:<RtlPb
> .476$p07....@eagle.america.net>...
> > It is my understanding that Ayn Rand would neither sanction nor objected to
> > OSS. Politically, Objectivism says that's it's OK to voluntarily give away
> > the fruits of your labor. IOW, "We won't stop you". Morally, however, you
> > are sacrificificing yourself and your efforts to others. This would be
> > antithical to Objectivist morality.
Piggy backing....
I don't think there is any moral objection what-so-ever,
provided the developer places his efforts under open
source licensing/public domain as that model suits his
interests in various cases. Most developers,
particularly good ones, work under a mix of commercial
licenses, various open source, and some simple giveaway.
All can be and are in people's best interest(s).
> IBM? Why they have nothing to do with GNU/Linux at all, right? ;)
Yea, IBM really digs that GNU/Freedom.
And Red Hat, and Sun, and Novell, etc.
(what, with it's legalistic power to sue people, and all)
-->
"Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex."
(Where there are no police, there are no speed limits.)
--Roman Law
John Shafto
ahoo.com> tippety tapped:
> "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> > first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
>
> Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
> perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
It's not entirely irrelevant, at least not for good programmers.
Linux Torvalds works for Meta-whatever, Jordan Hubbard works
for Apple. Both were certainly hired based on their open
source efforts (not entirely unpaid btw). They are more
notable cases, but I have heard of many more.
Supply and demand works in software too (cheap/free has
great demand). There are great numbers of programmers out there,
so giving a good chunk of code away can have many benefits,
not least reputation.
Tim Skirvin
>> I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cancel this, as it's about Our Favorite
>> Banned Group. (Which saddens me, since I actually find the
>> conversation interesting, given how much open-source software I've
>> written...but that's neither here nor there). So...don't do that.
>What's the reasoning here? The discussion here does not in any way touch
>on or mention the group.
I didn't say I was banning the discussion, just cancelling the
message with the original URL.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, humanities.philosophy.objectivism
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/posts.html Skirv's Posts
Shayne Wissler
"John Shafto" <jwsh...@otam.moc> wrote in message
news:20040121153508.0...@otam.moc...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Shayne Wissler
<thalesNOSPAM000@y
> ahoo.com> tippety tapped:
>
>
> > "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> > news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> > > first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
> >
> > Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
> > perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
>
> It's not entirely irrelevant, at least not for good programmers.
>
> Linux Torvalds works for Meta-whatever, Jordan Hubbard works
> for Apple. Both were certainly hired based on their open
> source efforts (not entirely unpaid btw). They are more
> notable cases, but I have heard of many more.
Torvalds is a good example of *my* point. His efforts are deserving of
payment, but he doesn't seek any. The fact that someone like him must be
dependent on someone hiring him would be a slap in the face, except that
he's done this to himself.
> Supply and demand works in software too (cheap/free has
> great demand). There are great numbers of programmers out there,
> so giving a good chunk of code away can have many benefits,
> not least reputation.
Again, making your source available for review, or achieving a degree of
success with the system you wrote, is not the same as giving it away.
So indeed, your points are beside the point.
Shayne Wissler
John Shafto
ahoo.com> tippety tapped:
>
> "John Shafto" <jwsh...@otam.moc> wrote in message
> news:20040121153508.0...@otam.moc...
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Shayne Wissler
> <thalesNOSPAM000@y
> > ahoo.com> tippety tapped:
> >
> >
> > > "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> > > > first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
> > >
> > > Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
> > > perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
> >
> > It's not entirely irrelevant, at least not for good programmers.
> >
> > Linux Torvalds works for Meta-whatever, Jordan Hubbard works
> > for Apple. Both were certainly hired based on their open
> > source efforts (not entirely unpaid btw). They are more
> > notable cases, but I have heard of many more.
>
> Torvalds is a good example of *my* point. His efforts are deserving of
> payment, but he doesn't seek any. The fact that someone like him must be
> dependent on someone hiring him would be a slap in the face, except that
> he's done this to himself.
Eh?
I thought Torvalds gets paid at Trans-Meta, no?
I've never looked into it, but I suspect he gets paid
very well there. He didn't get paid (much, at the time)
for his early work on the Linux Kernel, but that was a
stepping stone. He can be respected as much as anyone
who works hard and gets ahead. Torvalds can take his
pick at many companies now, I would venture (assuming
he's not a prick).
> > Supply and demand works in software too (cheap/free has
> > great demand). There are great numbers of programmers out there,
> > so giving a good chunk of code away can have many benefits,
> > not least reputation.
>
> Again, making your source available for review, or achieving a degree of
> success with the system you wrote, is not the same as giving it away.
>
> So indeed, your points are beside the point.
Software licenses are about redistribution more than use.
There are not many organizations looking for programmers
so they can review their code and pay them for future work
based on what they see, the ones who are hiring are looking
for some track record too. It's the age old apprenticeship
model, candy stripers, and that.
Redistribution is how people get reputations (good or bad).
This was the success of shareware (and early MS), but in a
multi-platform and more technically savvy world, offering the
source is quite a value itself (it's an edge). It's similar to
the music industry this way, musicians have to let their work out
to radio stations and such in order to get heard. The third
parties then play (redistribute) it a lot (where others can
record it etc). After that, people may start buying.
"Achieving a degree of success" is first about people
getting and using the work. Not everyone can be hired by
Microsoft or IBM, and slapping up a web site out of the blue
and selling software might be beer money, if the programmer
is very good, and happens to get some buzz by meeting sorely
needed gap.
Jason Hoetger
989$nt4.299616@attbi_s51>...
> > Allowing other people to have copies of that program does not erode
> > the benefit of having that problem solved for oneself. In fact, if
> > those other people find bugs and improve it, all the better.
>
> True, but again, not relevant. There's no need to make the source "open" as
> in "perpetually free." One could make it "free for all who submit
> improvements", and charge mere users a fee, or some such.
> > Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> > first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
>
> Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
> perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
You're being very closed-minded. There are several contexts in which
developing open-source is preferable to developing proprietary
software. It may be onerous to charge for your software and issue
licenses, espcially for a more trivial program. Or you might want your
program to be rapidly adopted. Trolltech created a market for Qt by
giving away its source (under the GPL, no less) to the average
Joe--but charging for commercial use of it. A company like
RealNetworks might have a great interest in eroding Microsoft's share
of the OS market by supporting open-source alternatives available to
as many people as possible. Furthermore, there is no better way to
guarantee the continued maintainance and support of your software than
by opening its source--perhaps a convincing argument to a potential
client. You might simply be very benevolent and derive great pleasure
knowing so many people are enjoying your software. I can think of
plenty of other examples.
Your same arguments against open-source software could be applied to
most websites as well. ARI could indeed charge money for access to its
website and perhaps even make a hefty profit on it, but they
don't--for completely selfish reasons.
If your ultimate motivation in opening your software's source is
self-interested, Objectivism has no problem with it. To that extent,
the GPL serves a legitimate, moral purpose. Objectivism and
open-source are not necessarilly incompatible.
Jason Hoetger
Shayne Wissler
"Jason Hoetger" <ho...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e4774c56.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> > > first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
> >
> > Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
> > perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
>
> You're being very closed-minded.
I have no desire to be anything but "closed-minded" about illogical
arguments. But note that I have not stated my position on open source--you
are apparently assuming to know what it is. The only thing I am doing is
dismissing bogus arguments.
> There are several contexts in which
> developing open-source is preferable to developing proprietary
> software. It may be onerous to charge for your software and issue
> licenses,
Just because you don't charge (at a given time) does not imply open source.
> Or you might want your
> program to be rapidly adopted. Trolltech created a market for Qt by
> giving away its source (under the GPL, no less) to the average
> Joe--but charging for commercial use of it.
They furthered and supported the evil GNU license--that's hardly a favorable
example of open-source.
> A company like
> RealNetworks might have a great interest in eroding Microsoft's share
> of the OS market by supporting open-source alternatives available to
> as many people as possible.
1. Why is that a valid motive?
2. Why is open source The Way to do that?
3. I didn't know that RealNetworks gave away their source--are you sure
about that?
> Furthermore, there is no better way to
> guarantee the continued maintainance and support of your software than
> by opening its source--perhaps a convincing argument to a potential
> client.
"No better way" sounds like dogma to me. You're going to have to provide
more evidence if you want to sit on that argument.
> You might simply be very benevolent and derive great pleasure
> knowing so many people are enjoying your software.
Hedonism isn't a valid reason.
> I can think of
> plenty of other examples.
Yes, but can you think of a single example that supports your position?
> Your same arguments against open-source software could be applied to
> most websites as well.
Ridiculous. A website is not the end product, it is information that helps
you get the end product out. Source, on the other hand, is directly
convertable into the end product. They are not commensurate.
> ARI could indeed charge money for access to its
> website and perhaps even make a hefty profit on it, but they
> don't--for completely selfish reasons.
Again, your comparison is invalid.
> If your ultimate motivation in opening your software's source is
> self-interested, Objectivism has no problem with it.
False. Objectivism has to do with more than mere intent.
> To that extent,
> the GPL serves a legitimate, moral purpose.
The GPL is evil.
> Objectivism and
> open-source are not necessarilly incompatible.
Perhaps, but no one here has given a decent argument for that position.
Shayne Wissler
Gary Reichlinger
<evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Shlomi Fish wrote:
>> I am both an Objectivist and an Open Source user, developer and
>> advocate, and wanted to make sure Objectivists don't view the Open
>> Source movement as anti-Capitalistic in nature.
>
>Why would we? If a man wants to give away his work, that's his right.
>If he contracts to give away his work, that's his business.
Giving something away free for promotional purposes is not new to
the open source movement. My desk drawer is full of free ball point
pens with some even having my company name on them (they were sent by
companies wanting to sell me pens). My wall has a calandar with a
bank's name on it. I have a variety of such free items including
combs, ice scrapers, fly swatters, and even items of clothing. If a
programmer gives away software to promote his services, there is
certainly nothing anti-capitalistic about that. Likewise, if IBM and
HP support Linux in an effort to sell more computers, they are still
doing it with a view toward profitability.
There are those within the open source community who espouse
anti-capitalistic views. They cross the 'S' on Microsoft (converting
it into a $) and think they are conveying the ultimate insult. That
does not mean that anyone who uses or promotes open source products is
affirming their ideas. In a free country if you do not like Microsoft
products, you can produce your own alternatives. This freedom extends
to forming partnerships with others to bring this about. As long as
you do not appropriate intellectual property belonging to someone
else, there is no legal or moral problem with writing, distributing,
or using free software.
Kaz Kylheku
> news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Preventing this
> > kind of absurdity is what the GNU license is about.
>
> The GNU license is about undermining intellectual property. It's about
> Marxism. It's an evil license.
Why do you think the GNU license is about undermining intellectual
property?
Is it because a Microsoft (or SCO?) press release informed you so? Or
is it because you are unable to separate the actual text of the GNU
license from the political views of some lunatic-fringe free software
advocates?
The GNU license indeed undermines one man's ability to help himself to
*another's* intellectual property without compensation. Moochers cry
foul when they get their hands on someone's work, but then discover
that they can't use it in their proprietary product without working
out an agreement with the owners of that intellectual property.
Microsoft's operating systems have working TCP/IP today only because
they were able to mooch the inadequately licensed BSD protocol stack.
There were no cries to the press about undermined intellectual
property then.
I think that the GNU license is perfect for programmers who want to
publish themselves. Wherever the code goes, it goes in source code
form, and it has your name attached! If someone wants to remove your
name, and redistribute the program in compiled form, he must contact
you for alternate licensing arrangements. Yet redistribution in source
form is nearly unrestricted, so your program can travel far and
wide---and your reputation with it.
Where is the hidden Marxism in all this?
I think I can help you with this one: there are GNU-licensed programs
that have had so many contributors, that it's meaningless to assign
ownership. Using that code in a proprietary program would require
individual permission from, and agreemements with, a large number of
people.
Some projects deal with this issue by requiring copyright assignments.
People contributing code to the project are required to assign the
copyright to those projects.
This is a completely separate concern which has nothing to do with the
GNU license, but rather the politics of some large projects. The GNU
license does not require copyright assignments; it allows
redistrubution of derived works.
It's possible for a GNU licensed program to have just one proprietor,
and many do. It is also possible for the proprietor of such a program
to reject contributions from others and encourage them instead to make
their own derived works. Or else he can buy the rights to these
improvements, so that either way his codebase remains his sole
property.
Kaz Kylheku
78$5V2.341113@attbi_s53>...
> "John Shafto" <jwsh...@otam.moc> wrote in message
> news:20040121153508.0...@otam.moc...
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Shayne Wissler
> <thalesNOSPAM000@y
> > ahoo.com> tippety tapped:
> >
> >
> > > "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Fourth, writing programs for yourself is a good way to establish a
> > > > first-hand reputation that is directly tied to your work.
> > >
> > > Again, another irrelevant point. One does not have to make the source
> > > perpetually free in order to gain this benefit.
> >
> > It's not entirely irrelevant, at least not for good programmers.
> >
> > Linux Torvalds works for Meta-whatever, Jordan Hubbard works
> > for Apple. Both were certainly hired based on their open
> > source efforts (not entirely unpaid btw). They are more
> > notable cases, but I have heard of many more.
>
> Torvalds is a good example of *my* point. His efforts are deserving of
> payment, but he doesn't seek any.
> The fact that someone like him must be
> dependent on someone hiring him would be a slap in the face, except that
> he's done this to himself.
Are you kidding? Right, *every* computer science student from Helsinki
gets to relocate to California into a quarter-million-per-year job,
whether or not they start a successful operating system. :)
Why is it a slap in the face to be hired?
What is ``someone like him''? Torvalds is a good engineer. Maybe he
just doesn't have the enterpreneurial skills or inclination to be in
business by himself. Who are we to criticize his personal choices?
Being a great programmer who can write solid kernel code doesn't
translate into millions of dollars. Most embedded systems hackers live
in obscurity on mediocre salaries.
Torvalds didn't write the entire operating system; in fact, only a
small fraction of today's codebase can be traced back to him. Had he
turned Linux into a proprietary business from the start, it would not
have gotten anywhere. Financially, he would probably be a lot worse
off had he made that move.
Much of the operating system kernel code is drivers. There is an
astounding array of peripherals for the PC architecture, and the list
grows constantly. A little proprietary company with a closed-source OS
can't possibly provide drivers for all of that hardware without
licensing a driver development kit to the makers of that hardware.
Those makers won't be interested, unless the name of your operating
system is Microsoft Windows.
Linux has continued to be successful between 1991 and today in a large
part thanks to people continously updating drivers and writing new
ones.
> > Supply and demand works in software too (cheap/free has
> > great demand). There are great numbers of programmers out there,
> > so giving a good chunk of code away can have many benefits,
> > not least reputation.
>
> Again, making your source available for review, or achieving a degree of
> success with the system you wrote, is not the same as giving it away.
Review is work! If you want someone to review, you have to compensate.
One way to compensate people for reviewing the software is to actually
let them run it to their own benefit. (To empirically test the
software, you have to run it, of course; part of the review of a large
program will involve running it).
What are you going to do? Hand someone a program and say, ``you can
read the code, and you can run it, but only for the purpose of finding
defects that you will report to me? Oh and by the way, I'm not going
to pay for your QA services.''
Shayne Wissler
> Shayne Wissler <thalesN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<9kCPb.100
> 989$nt4.299616@attbi_s51>...
> > "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> > news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Preventing this
> > > kind of absurdity is what the GNU license is about.
> >
> > The GNU license is about undermining intellectual property. It's about
> > Marxism. It's an evil license.
>
> Why do you think the GNU license is about undermining intellectual
> property?
Have you read it?!
> Is it because a Microsoft (or SCO?) press release informed you so? Or
No, it's because the author told me so.
Shayne Wissler
Shayne Wissler
"Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > Linux Torvalds works for Meta-whatever, Jordan Hubbard works
> > > for Apple. Both were certainly hired based on their open
> > > source efforts (not entirely unpaid btw). They are more
> > > notable cases, but I have heard of many more.
> >
> > Torvalds is a good example of *my* point. His efforts are deserving of
> > payment, but he doesn't seek any.
> > The fact that someone like him must be
> > dependent on someone hiring him would be a slap in the face, except that
> > he's done this to himself.
>
> Are you kidding? Right, *every* computer science student from Helsinki
> gets to relocate to California into a quarter-million-per-year job,
> whether or not they start a successful operating system. :)
>
> Why is it a slap in the face to be hired?
Who said it was? Read more carefully.
> What is ``someone like him''? Torvalds is a good engineer. Maybe he
> just doesn't have the enterpreneurial skills or inclination to be in
> business by himself. Who are we to criticize his personal choices?
Yeah right, "Who are we to judge anything."
> Torvalds didn't write the entire operating system; in fact, only a
> small fraction of today's codebase can be traced back to him. Had he
> turned Linux into a proprietary business from the start, it would not
> have gotten anywhere. Financially, he would probably be a lot worse
> off had he made that move.
You don't know that. You only see the world in terms of how it exists right
now, and that's what you base your thought experiments on.
> Much of the operating system kernel code is drivers. There is an
> astounding array of peripherals for the PC architecture, and the list
> grows constantly. A little proprietary company with a closed-source OS
> can't possibly provide drivers for all of that hardware without
> licensing a driver development kit to the makers of that hardware.
> Those makers won't be interested, unless the name of your operating
> system is Microsoft Windows.
Again, your imagination is clearly limited by others happen to have done. So
there's really no point in us having this discussion.
Shayne Wissler
Jason Hoetger
247$nt4.334581@attbi_s51>...
> Just because you don't charge (at a given time) does not imply open source.
But it does under certain circumstances.
> > Or you might want your
> > program to be rapidly adopted. Trolltech created a market for Qt by
> > giving away its source (under the GPL, no less) to the average
> > Joe--but charging for commercial use of it.
>
> They furthered and supported the evil GNU license--that's hardly a favorable
> example of open-source.
I provided an example of the GPL and open-source being effectively
used to further a completely selfish, profitable gaol, yet you still
denounce it as "evil". You see the contradiction but ignore it,
prefering to evade anything that doesn't fit your pre-defined
conception of the GPL. Certainly this is not an Objectivist's
position.
> > A company like
> > RealNetworks might have a great interest in eroding Microsoft's share
> > of the OS market by supporting open-source alternatives available to
> > as many people as possible.
>
> 1. Why is that a valid motive?
> 2. Why is open source The Way to do that?
> 3. I didn't know that RealNetworks gave away their source--are you sure
> about that?
RealNetworks does not give away their source code, nor did I ever say
they did. They do publish proprietary software that competes directly
with the entrenched, Windows-integrated Windows Media Player. Reducing
Windows' share of the OS market--and therefore making it more likely
people will turn to their products--is certainly a selfish and moral
thing to do. An open-source OS is not the only way of doing that, but
probably the most effective currently.
I'd like to point out that plenty of other companies are effectively
using the same strategy: Novell, Sun, IBM, to name just a few. Are
they "evil" for attempting to create a market for their products and
services?
> > You might simply be very benevolent and derive great pleasure
> > knowing so many people are enjoying your software.
>
> Hedonism isn't a valid reason.
I'm inclined to agree--but that still doesn't address what I said,
which has nothing to do with hedonism.
> > Your same arguments against open-source software could be applied to
> > most websites as well.
>
> Ridiculous. A website is not the end product, it is information that helps
> you get the end product out. Source, on the other hand, is directly
> convertable into the end product. They are not commensurate.
ARI gives away plenty of "end product" on their website--again, for
selfish reasons. Giving away something for free, be it source code or
parts of Rand's and other Objectivists' work, does not invariably
necessitate self-sacrifice.
> > If your ultimate motivation in opening your software's source is
> > self-interested, Objectivism has no problem with it.
>
> False. Objectivism has to do with more than mere intent.
This is ridiculous--what else are we supposed to consider when
deciding which license to use and whether to open our source, other
than self-interest? Objectivism recognizes no other standard.
> > To that extent,
> > the GPL serves a legitimate, moral purpose.
>
> The GPL is evil.
Keep repeating that, eventually you'll make it true.
Shayne Wissler
news:<4xTPb.104
> 247$nt4.334581@attbi_s51>...
> > Just because you don't charge (at a given time) does not imply open
source.
>
> But it does under certain circumstances.
What ones?
> > > Or you might want your
> > > program to be rapidly adopted. Trolltech created a market for Qt by
> > > giving away its source (under the GPL, no less) to the average
> > > Joe--but charging for commercial use of it.
> >
> > They furthered and supported the evil GNU license--that's hardly a
favorable
> > example of open-source.
>
> I provided an example of the GPL and open-source being effectively
> used to further a completely selfish, profitable gaol, yet you still
> denounce it as "evil".
I denounce GNU as evil.
> You see the contradiction but ignore it,
Oh, so now you're a mind-reader.
> prefering to evade anything that doesn't fit your pre-defined
> conception of the GPL. Certainly this is not an Objectivist's
> position.
Certainly, you're confused.
> > > A company like
> > > RealNetworks might have a great interest in eroding Microsoft's share
> > > of the OS market by supporting open-source alternatives available to
> > > as many people as possible.
> >
> > 1. Why is that a valid motive?
> > 2. Why is open source The Way to do that?
> > 3. I didn't know that RealNetworks gave away their source--are you sure
> > about that?
>
> RealNetworks does not give away their source code, nor did I ever say
> they did.
So, why did you bring them in? We were discussing open source.
> They do publish proprietary software that competes directly
> with the entrenched, Windows-integrated Windows Media Player. Reducing
> Windows' share of the OS market--and therefore making it more likely
> people will turn to their products--is certainly a selfish and moral
> thing to do. An open-source OS is not the only way of doing that, but
> probably the most effective currently.
I don't recall questioning the morality of producing software for an open
source OS. I myself have done that. You're creating my position for me out
of thin air. (And, I never said that open source was evil, I said that GNU
was).
> I'd like to point out that plenty of other companies are effectively
> using the same strategy: Novell, Sun, IBM, to name just a few. Are
> they "evil" for attempting to create a market for their products and
> services?
Not as far as I know, except for Sun.
> > > You might simply be very benevolent and derive great pleasure
> > > knowing so many people are enjoying your software.
> >
> > Hedonism isn't a valid reason.
>
> I'm inclined to agree--but that still doesn't address what I said,
> which has nothing to do with hedonism.
It had nothing to do with reason. "Very benevolent and derive great
pleasure"--do you take this as an argument for anything?
> > > Your same arguments against open-source software could be applied to
> > > most websites as well.
> >
> > Ridiculous. A website is not the end product, it is information that
helps
> > you get the end product out. Source, on the other hand, is directly
> > convertable into the end product. They are not commensurate.
>
> ARI gives away plenty of "end product" on their website--again, for
> selfish reasons. Giving away something for free, be it source code or
> parts of Rand's and other Objectivists' work, does not invariably
> necessitate self-sacrifice.
I didn't say it did, so I don't know why you're going in this direction.
> > > If your ultimate motivation in opening your software's source is
> > > self-interested, Objectivism has no problem with it.
> >
> > False. Objectivism has to do with more than mere intent.
>
> This is ridiculous--what else are we supposed to consider when
> deciding which license to use and whether to open our source, other
> than self-interest? Objectivism recognizes no other standard.
You are clearly not an Objectivist--in Objectivism, the end does not justify
the means.
> > > To that extent,
> > > the GPL serves a legitimate, moral purpose.
> >
> > The GPL is evil.
>
> Keep repeating that, eventually you'll make it true.
Anyone who has ever browsed http://www.gnu.org can recognize the
organization as evil. That you can't really sums you up as far as I'm
concerned.
Shayne Wissler
Steven O.
>are sacrificificing yourself and your efforts to others. This would be
Actually, while generally a fan of Rand's overall philosophy, I have
to comment that one of her omissions -- there are a few big ones in
her philosophy -- is that some people actually, sincerely, genuinely
get pleasure simply from sharing. They feel good about it. If
someone feels good about creating something and giving it away,
because they like making life better for others, then there is no
ominous "Sacrifice" involved.
Personally, if I could create some program that I thought had huge
financial potential, I'd probably try to keep it as a proprietary
product. But if I could code something that I thought had some
utility, but relatively limited potential for revenue, I'd probably
give it away, simply because it's not worth the effort of trying to
protect the IP in exchange for a miniscule income stream. And, I'd
feel good about sharing something that might benefit others.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:29:02 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bagadonuts
<joebagad...@america.net> wrote:
>It is my understanding that Ayn Rand would neither sanction nor objected to
>OSS. Politically, Objectivism says that's it's OK to voluntarily give away
>the fruits of your labor. IOW, "We won't stop you". Morally, however, you
>are sacrificificing yourself and your efforts to others. This would be
>antithical to Objectivist morality.
Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be*
an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.
John Shafto
in message news:Jh1Qb.129871$na.167897@attbi_s04...
>
> "Jason Hoetger" <> wrote
[...]
> > > > If your ultimate motivation in opening your software's source is
> > > > self-interested, Objectivism has no problem with it.
> > >
> > > False. Objectivism has to do with more than mere intent.
> >
> > This is ridiculous--what else are we supposed to consider when
> > deciding which license to use and whether to open our source, other
> > than self-interest? Objectivism recognizes no other standard.
>
> You are clearly not an Objectivist--in Objectivism, the end does not justify
> the means.
So one's life does not justify one's right to own/use a gun,
or their labor, or their mind? I don't know what Objectivism
you are referring to.
> > > > To that extent,
> > > > the GPL serves a legitimate, moral purpose.
> > >
> > > The GPL is evil.
> >
> > Keep repeating that, eventually you'll make it true.
>
> Anyone who has ever browsed http://www.gnu.org can recognize the
> organization as evil. That you can't really sums you up as far as I'm
> concerned.
I'm inclined to agree with you there. They want to communize the
work of developers by preaching and doublespeaking to them
about "freedom" and such, or by using their 'work' (largely
second-hand from truly open source efforts) as a lever to force
other developers to use their license, if that work is 'derivative'.
I think the GPLs days are numbered though, people are not so
easy to coerce against their own interests, and code can be
modified very rapidly (licenses removed), still do the same job,
and still save the developer loads of time.
Open Source=BSD,MIT, etc. (liberal) licensing.
John Shafto
>
> The GNU license indeed undermines one man's ability to help himself to
> *another's* intellectual property without compensation. Moochers cry
> foul when they get their hands on someone's work, but then discover
> that they can't use it in their proprietary product without working
> out an agreement with the owners of that intellectual property.
I don't get this kind of talk from people who claim to support
open source. You're talking about open source, remember?
That means it's out there for the whole world to see and use,
or so the world thought, before GNU came along (borrowed
most of it), and tried to make sure that the "wrong" people
didn't get to use open source.
> Microsoft's operating systems have working TCP/IP today only because
> they were able to mooch the inadequately licensed BSD protocol stack.
> There were no cries to the press about undermined intellectual
> property then.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE LICENSE ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT,
they didn't "mooch", "steal", or undermine anything. The code
is still there, still available to anyone who wants it.
Furthermore, Windows and the world are better for it.
Would you rather have had some MS proprietary stack,
and a Sun stack, and an IBM stack? <scratch>
Hmmm, which Internet should I go onto today?
Some people just don't get it.
Shayne Wissler
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:1011d85...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Shayne Wissler" <> wrote
> in message news:Jh1Qb.129871$na.167897@attbi_s04...
> >
> > "Jason Hoetger" <> wrote
>
> [...]
> > > > > If your ultimate motivation in opening your software's source is
> > > > > self-interested, Objectivism has no problem with it.
> > > >
> > > > False. Objectivism has to do with more than mere intent.
> > >
> > > This is ridiculous--what else are we supposed to consider when
> > > deciding which license to use and whether to open our source, other
> > > than self-interest? Objectivism recognizes no other standard.
> >
> > You are clearly not an Objectivist--in Objectivism, the end does not
justify
> > the means.
>
> So one's life does not justify one's right to own/use a gun,
> or their labor, or their mind?
You can't just declare something to be in your "self-interest" and then
pursue it. Objectivism holds that you must rationally form your ends and
rationally choose your means to conform. What the op was talking about was
whim-worship, not true self-interest.
> I don't know what Objectivism
> you are referring to.
No, the problem is that you're not following the discussion.
Shayne Wissler
Kaz Kylheku
rp.supernews.com>...
> "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> news:cf333042.0401...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> > The GNU license indeed undermines one man's ability to help himself to
> > *another's* intellectual property without compensation. Moochers cry
> > foul when they get their hands on someone's work, but then discover
> > that they can't use it in their proprietary product without working
> > out an agreement with the owners of that intellectual property.
>
> I don't get this kind of talk from people who claim to support
> open source.
So you could ``get'' the talk based on who is talking? Hmm,
interesting.
By the way, I didn't claim to support open source, so feel free to get
it!
> You're talking about open source, remember?
> That means it's out there for the whole world to see and use,
> or so the world thought, before GNU came along (borrowed
> most of it), and tried to make sure that the "wrong" people
> didn't get to use open source.
That is nonsense; there is nothing in the license about excluding
specific people, only specific *actions* with regard to redistributing
protected work. It is purely a legal instrument; it is completely
irrelevant that some people with certain views believe that the
license serves their politics.
Regarding ``use'', the license doesn't cover use, only redistribution.
It's purely a copyright-based instrument, not the type of license
which governs uses that don't involve copying. It's not possible to
agree to the GPL when you intent is just to run the program; you can't
meaningfully put this on shrinkwrap.
Anyone may use a GPL'ed program without agreeing to any license. The
license comes into effect when redistribution takes place. That
redistribution would not even be permitted without the license, thanks
to copyright.
> > Microsoft's operating systems have working TCP/IP today only because
> > they were able to mooch the inadequately licensed BSD protocol stack.
> > There were no cries to the press about undermined intellectual
> > property then.
>
> THAT'S BECAUSE THE LICENSE ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT,
Legally, it did indeed.
> they didn't "mooch", "steal", or undermine anything. The code
> is still there, still available to anyone who wants it.
Uh oh, the ``still there'' argument! Isn't that used by pirates? That
artist's music, or that computer program, is ``still there'', I just
have a harmless copy. Objectivists aren't allowed to invoke this, are
they? :)
> Furthermore, Windows and the world are better for it.
So what's good for the world is good, not necessarily what is good for
the producing individual. Uh oh!
> Would you rather have had some MS proprietary stack,
> and a Sun stack, and an IBM stack? <scratch>
That would actually be better for security; you wouldn't have as many
cases of exactly the same exploit being found in half a dozen
different operating systems at once.
There are dangers in software monocultures.
You do know that TCP/IP existed before BSD UNIX acquired a stack? You
do know that there are non-BSD implementations that interoperate just
fine (and not only Linux).
Do you understand what it means to have a rigorous specification, that
is implemented more than once?
But all of these observations are irrelevant. Suppose it really is
technically best to just have one implementation of a protocol. This
is completely tangential to the discussion; the technical merit of an
action cannot be used to justify it morally.
This is analogous to justifying a totalitarian government, on the
grounds that the trains run like clockwork and the streets are clean.
> Hmmm, which Internet should I go onto today?
Linux has its own TCP stack. Do you have to go on a Linux internet to
access Linux hosts?
> Some people just don't get it.
Indeed.
John Shafto
> > You're talking about open source, remember?
> > That means it's out there for the whole world to see and use,
> > or so the world thought, before GNU came along (borrowed
> > most of it), and tried to make sure that the "wrong" people
> > didn't get to use open source.
>
> That is nonsense; there is nothing in the license about excluding
> specific people, only specific *actions* with regard to redistributing
> protected work. It is purely a legal instrument; it is completely
> irrelevant that some people with certain views believe that the
> license serves their politics.
Like Richard Stallman?
You're right though, it is purely a legal instrument.
> Regarding ``use'', the license doesn't cover use, only redistribution.
> It's purely a copyright-based instrument, not the type of license
> which governs uses that don't involve copying. It's not possible to
> agree to the GPL when you intent is just to run the program; you can't
> meaningfully put this on shrinkwrap.
>
> Anyone may use a GPL'ed program without agreeing to any license. The
> license comes into effect when redistribution takes place. That
> redistribution would not even be permitted without the license, thanks
> to copyright.
That makes no sense. Are suggesting that code cannot
be redistributed unless the author sanctions redistribution
in a legal instrument? It seems that you have copyright
law backwards, copyright law is intended to be there for
people who want to protect their work, they have to use
it before it has any effect. I don't think copyright law
automatically covers intellectual property, one has to
legally assert something (and pay) for it's use.
> > > Microsoft's operating systems have working TCP/IP today only because
> > > they were able to mooch the inadequately licensed BSD protocol stack.
> > > There were no cries to the press about undermined intellectual
> > > property then.
> >
> > THAT'S BECAUSE THE LICENSE ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT,
>
> Legally, it did indeed.
>
> > they didn't "mooch", "steal", or undermine anything. The code
> > is still there, still available to anyone who wants it.
>
> Uh oh, the ``still there'' argument! Isn't that used by pirates? That
> artist's music, or that computer program, is ``still there'', I just
> have a harmless copy. Objectivists aren't allowed to invoke this, are
> they? :)
You keep trying to spin things by using morally charged
language. Pirates take property against the owners wishes.
If works are left unprotected, precisely so that anyone may
use it, piracy is not in play.
> > Furthermore, Windows and the world are better for it.
>
> So what's good for the world is good, not necessarily what
> is good for the producing individual. Uh oh!
We are talking about a world of individuals, some of who have
to wisdom to realize that _really_ opening their work for anyone
to use, anyway they see fit, can also be in their interests.
> > Would you rather have had some MS proprietary stack,
> > and a Sun stack, and an IBM stack? <scratch>
>
> That would actually be better for security; you wouldn't have as many
> cases of exactly the same exploit being found in half a dozen
> different operating systems at once.
>
> There are dangers in software monocultures.
>
> You do know that TCP/IP existed before BSD UNIX acquired a stack?
Yes, AT&T forked their code to Berkeley in 1978, whereupon
Berkelely, and other educational institutions, used it to create
the Internet. They did this by using truly liberal licensing.
> You do know that there are non-BSD implementations that
> interoperate just fine (and not only Linux).
I know that Linux's stack sucked, until they dropped their
own efforts and used the BSD stack. I know that Sun and
IBM also both used the BSD stack. I know that reinventing
the wheel is stupid, particularly when the inventor has wisely
agreed to let anyone use their invention, for any purpose.
> Do you understand what it means to have a rigorous specification,
> that is implemented more than once?
>
> But all of these observations are irrelevant. Suppose it really is
> technically best to just have one implementation of a protocol. This
> is completely tangential to the discussion; the technical merit of an
> action cannot be used to justify it morally.
The moral IS the practical, creating a dichotomy is nonsense.
> This is analogous to justifying a totalitarian government, on the
> grounds that the trains run like clockwork and the streets are clean.
Terrible analogy.
Making source open for any use is not totalitarian.
The error in the "trains" argument is that the trains can run
on time, and lots more, without the GPL, er...government.
Kaz Kylheku
411$sv6.448507@attbi_s52>...
> > What is ``someone like him''? Torvalds is a good engineer. Maybe he
> > just doesn't have the enterpreneurial skills or inclination to be in
> > business by himself. Who are we to criticize his personal choices?
>
> Yeah right, "Who are we to judge anything."
We are people who lack a whole lot of relevant information to be able
to judge, that's who. We are not people who wash ourselves of judging
when we have the information.
> > Torvalds didn't write the entire operating system; in fact, only a
> > small fraction of today's codebase can be traced back to him. Had he
> > turned Linux into a proprietary business from the start, it would not
> > have gotten anywhere. Financially, he would probably be a lot worse
> > off had he made that move.
>
> You don't know that. You only see the world in terms of how it exists right
> now, and that's what you base your thought experiments on.
That's right. So without idle speculations about nonexistent alternate
outcomes in imaginary parallel universes, how can we answer the
question whether the man has well served his own interests?
Shayne Wissler
> > > Torvalds didn't write the entire operating system; in fact, only a
> > > small fraction of today's codebase can be traced back to him. Had he
> > > turned Linux into a proprietary business from the start, it would not
> > > have gotten anywhere. Financially, he would probably be a lot worse
> > > off had he made that move.
> >
> > You don't know that. You only see the world in terms of how it exists
right
> > now, and that's what you base your thought experiments on.
>
> That's right. So without idle speculations about nonexistent alternate
> outcomes in imaginary parallel universes, how can we answer the
> question whether the man has well served his own interests?
Again, your list of alternatives is paltry. "Idle speculation" is not the
opposite of a lack of imagination.
Shayne Wissler
Jason Hoetger
871$na.167897@attbi_s04>...
> > Shayne Wissler <thalesN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<4xTPb.104
> > 247$nt4.334581@attbi_s51>...
> > > Just because you don't charge (at a given time) does not imply open
> source.
> >
> > But it does under certain circumstances.
>
> What ones?
I already listed several; certainly a person of reasonable
intelligence can easily think of more. You've implicitly acknowledged
several yourself.
> > > > Or you might want your
> > > > program to be rapidly adopted. Trolltech created a market for Qt by
> > > > giving away its source (under the GPL, no less) to the average
> > > > Joe--but charging for commercial use of it.
> > >
> > > They furthered and supported the evil GNU license--that's hardly a
> favorable
> > > example of open-source.
> >
> > I provided an example of the GPL and open-source being effectively
> > used to further a completely selfish, profitable gaol, yet you still
> > denounce it as "evil".
>
> I denounce GNU as evil.
I denounce Stalin as evil... Your statement is likewise irrelevant.
> > You see the contradiction but ignore it,
>
> Oh, so now you're a mind-reader.
I call them like I see them.
> > RealNetworks does not give away their source code, nor did I ever say
> > they did.
>
> So, why did you bring them in? We were discussing open source.
I see you don't read my posts very carefully. I'll remind you just
this once that I said RealNetworks might have an interest in promoting
an open-source (and perhaps GPL) operating system (in order to get
more people to use their products), yet another example of how
open-source and the GPL can be used to further a legitimate end.
> > They do publish proprietary software that competes directly
> > with the entrenched, Windows-integrated Windows Media Player. Reducing
> > Windows' share of the OS market--and therefore making it more likely
> > people will turn to their products--is certainly a selfish and moral
> > thing to do. An open-source OS is not the only way of doing that, but
> > probably the most effective currently.
>
> I don't recall questioning the morality of producing software for an open
> source OS.
And I don't recall saying anything about it...
> (And, I never said that open source was evil, I said that GNU
> was).
Actually, you said that GNU's license, the GPL, is evil. Your exact
words were "The GNU license is about undermining intellectual
property. It's about
Marxism. It's an evil license." In fact, you never said GNU was evil
until just now. You've never backed up your claims about the GPL--have
you even read it?--with any sort of evidence, either. You just keep
repeating it: GPL is evil... GNU's license is evil... hoping it will
come true.
> > I'd like to point out that plenty of other companies are effectively
> > using the same strategy: Novell, Sun, IBM, to name just a few. Are
> > they "evil" for attempting to create a market for their products and
> > services?
>
> Not as far as I know, except for Sun.
So then you've accepted my point, that the GPL and open-source
software are moral. Sun is evil for unrelated reasons. I'm glad we
agree now.
> "Very benevolent and derive great
> pleasure"--do you take this as an argument for anything?
Absolutely--Rand considered charity a (minor) virtue, and a positive
sense of life naturally implies taking pleasure in others' happiness
and achievement of values so long as it requires no sacrifice. Perhaps
your dim sense of life is clouding your judgement here.
> > This is ridiculous--what else are we supposed to consider when
> > deciding which license to use and whether to open our source, other
> > than self-interest? Objectivism recognizes no other standard.
>
> You are clearly not an Objectivist--in Objectivism, the end does not justify
> the means.
You must have quite the sense of irony. Surely you're joking? You
indicate that self-interest is not to be the guiding principle in
decision-making, then declare *me* to be the Objectivist impersonator?
> > > > To that extent,
> > > > the GPL serves a legitimate, moral purpose.
> > >
> > > The GPL is evil.
> >
> > Keep repeating that, eventually you'll make it true.
>
> Anyone who has ever browsed http://www.gnu.org can recognize the
> organization as evil. That you can't really sums you up as far as I'm
> concerned.
You're either egregiously careless with your words, or extremely
ignorant. The GPL is not an organization, it's GNU's license. GNU is
not a license, it's an organization.
GNU and FSF are evil--you got that much right--but that's not what
this discussion is about.
Jason Hoetger
Jason Hoetger
rp.supernews.com>...
> I don't think copyright law
> automatically covers intellectual property, one has to
> legally assert something (and pay) for it's use.
Actually, it does, anything you create is automatically copyrighted by
you as long as you indicate your desire to do so (by placing (C) 2004
Jason Hoetger on it, for instance). You can register it federally
somehow (I'm not sure if it costs any money) in order to establish
firmly that you were the *first* to create something, in case of
dispute. But it's not strictly necessary, much like a written contract
is not strictly necessary if you already have a verbal contract--but
probably a good idea anyway.
Even though GNU, FSF, and Richard Stallman are all evil, all hate
intellectual property, and all want to undermine copyright entirely,
the GPL does a fairly good job of, well, protecting intellectual
property and ensuring copyright. In fact, it *explicitly guarantees*
to authors the copyright for their work. It also prohibits people from
mooching without the authors' consent. In that way, it offers much
more control over your source than, say, placing it in the public
domain and letting anybody do whatever they want with it. If you want
to open your source, it's not a bad way to go. It certainly makes for
a poor stepping stone to IPless socialism.
Jason Hoetger
John Shafto
>
> Actually, you said that GNU's license, the GPL, is evil. Your exact
> words were "The GNU license is about undermining intellectual
> property. It's about
> Marxism. It's an evil license." In fact, you never said GNU was evil
> until just now. You've never backed up your claims about the GPL--have
> you even read it?--with any sort of evidence, either. You just keep
> repeating it: GPL is evil... GNU's license is evil... hoping it will
> come true.
I've read it. I'm not sure what it actually does rises to the
level of 'evil', something like it might serve a decent purpose
in encouraging some developers to use open-source, since
they may take comfort in the idea that they _might_ be able
to sue someone without having to pay for their own license.
This kernel of potential value is all that makes the GPL popular
at all. At the same time, I would be surprised to see a court
uphold a significant case against someone not complying with
the GPL, as it is worded. If a significant case ever comes up,
I wouldn't be surprised at all if a court holds that the developer
should have taken better precautions to protect their code, such
as stricter commercial licensing of the code, or closed-source
release. So, the GPL is probably even deceptive and/or muddled
on this account.
Further, the text of the license is at least prefaced with muddled
thinking and doublespeak. To the extent that those are taken as evil,
I would accept that characterization of the whole license. Also,
to the extent that the second handers of GNU/FSF, which wouldn't
exist were it not for more liberal licensing, use the GPL as a
propaganda device to progress their efforts to move as much
of the broader open-source movement into their little
statist/altruistic/freakish misperceived world, it is also evil.
In short, the GPL is in many ways a propaganda device,
very far from objective thinking, that tries to distort perceptions
for the purpose of furthering the GNU organization at the expense
of the labor of idealistic open-source developers. I'd call that
capitalizing on the labor of others, and without recompense
if the license can't at least hold up under a lawsuit.
John Shafto
> John Shafto <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<1012pv5cke0sl08@co
> rp.supernews.com>...
> > I don't think copyright law
> > automatically covers intellectual property, one has to
> > legally assert something (and pay) for it's use.
>
> Actually, it does, anything you create is automatically copyrighted by
> you as long as you indicate your desire to do so (by placing (C) 2004
> Jason Hoetger on it, for instance). You can register it federally
> somehow (I'm not sure if it costs any money) in order to establish
> firmly that you were the *first* to create something, in case of
> dispute. But it's not strictly necessary, much like a written contract
> is not strictly necessary if you already have a verbal contract--but
> probably a good idea anyway.
I think that's pretty much right, but I also think that such a
copyright would only have weight in the most clear cut cases.
I'm pretty sure that registering, and writing up some kind
of lawyer sanctioned license would go a lot further.
I'm no IP lawyer though, so I can only speak broadly
from my own investigations into how to protect some
things I have been involved in. The system is so convoluted
and politicized, that the time is right for the socialists to
step in and "protect the little guy".
> Even though GNU, FSF, and Richard Stallman are all evil, all hate
> intellectual property, and all want to undermine copyright entirely,
> the GPL does a fairly good job of, well, protecting intellectual
> property and ensuring copyright.
I think that very much remains to be seen.
I haven't heard of any significant test of the GPL.
> In fact, it *explicitly guarantees* to authors the copyright
> for their work.
I'm not sure the law does though, at least not any more than
merely placing a (C) on it would.
> It also prohibits people from mooching without the authors'
> consent. In that way, it offers much more control over your
> source than, say, placing it in the public domain and letting
> anybody do whatever they want with it.
I have my doubts about that.
> If you want to open your source, it's not a bad way to go.
> It certainly makes for a poor stepping stone to IPless socialism.
I don't think socialists really want an IP-less system, the puritans
just don't want private individuals or groups that refuse to cloak
their activities in a fuzzy-altruistic-socio-political model using IP
to make money. Nationalized/collectivized IP is another matter.
If you are a member of the right political 'class', they expect plenty
of government protection for IP. The socialists of the information
age are just like the socialists of the industrial age, they want the
labors of everyone in a single pot (under a single license) for
redistribution by political means. They see software developers
as a modern day proletariat, crying out for their political protection.
The GPL is the beginnings of an info-age labor union. The next step,
which has already started, is for them to call anyone off their
plantation a "moocher", who takes advantage of their collective
labors and bargaining, while refusing to contribute.
Shayne Wissler
> > I denounce GNU as evil.
>
> I denounce Stalin as evil... Your statement is likewise irrelevant.
So, you agree that GNU is evil, but you're happy promoting their
organization by using their license.
> > > You see the contradiction but ignore it,
> >
> > Oh, so now you're a mind-reader.
>
> I call them like I see them.
Through distorted lenses...
> > > RealNetworks does not give away their source code, nor did I ever say
> > > they did.
> >
> > So, why did you bring them in? We were discussing open source.
>
> I see you don't read my posts very carefully.
No, you're just misleading.
> I'll remind you just
> this once that I said RealNetworks might have an interest in promoting
> an open-source (and perhaps GPL) operating system (in order to get
> more people to use their products), yet another example of how
> open-source and the GPL can be used to further a legitimate end.
Yes, I now see that you aren't saying anything at all about RealNetworks,
but pretending that it's an example of something. Pardon me for giving you
any benefit of the doubt.
> > > They do publish proprietary software that competes directly
> > > with the entrenched, Windows-integrated Windows Media Player. Reducing
> > > Windows' share of the OS market--and therefore making it more likely
> > > people will turn to their products--is certainly a selfish and moral
> > > thing to do. An open-source OS is not the only way of doing that, but
> > > probably the most effective currently.
> >
> > I don't recall questioning the morality of producing software for an
open
> > source OS.
>
> And I don't recall saying anything about it...
Then I have no idea what it is you mean by the above paragraph.
> > (And, I never said that open source was evil, I said that GNU
> > was).
>
> Actually, you said that GNU's license, the GPL, is evil. Your exact
> words were "The GNU license is about undermining intellectual
> property. It's about
> Marxism. It's an evil license." In fact, you never said GNU was evil
> until just now. You've never backed up your claims about the GPL--have
> you even read it?--with any sort of evidence, either. You just keep
> repeating it: GPL is evil... GNU's license is evil... hoping it will
> come true.
The purpose of the GPL is to further GNU's evil goals. Apparently you agree
that the goals are evil, but you divorce the means from the end. A bizzare
thing to do for a supposed "Objectivist".
> > > I'd like to point out that plenty of other companies are effectively
> > > using the same strategy: Novell, Sun, IBM, to name just a few. Are
> > > they "evil" for attempting to create a market for their products and
> > > services?
> >
> > Not as far as I know, except for Sun.
>
> So then you've accepted my point, that the GPL and open-source
> software are moral. Sun is evil for unrelated reasons. I'm glad we
> agree now.
I accepted no such point, I just don't know what those companies are doing
specifically. And you are obviously dishonest in your methods of arguing.
> > "Very benevolent and derive great
> > pleasure"--do you take this as an argument for anything?
>
> Absolutely--Rand considered charity a (minor) virtue,
Where does she say that charity is a virtue, minor or otherwise? Quotes
please.
> > > This is ridiculous--what else are we supposed to consider when
> > > deciding which license to use and whether to open our source, other
> > > than self-interest? Objectivism recognizes no other standard.
> >
> > You are clearly not an Objectivist--in Objectivism, the end does not
justify
> > the means.
>
> You must have quite the sense of irony. Surely you're joking? You
> indicate that self-interest is not to be the guiding principle in
> decision-making, then declare *me* to be the Objectivist impersonator?
You're obviously not an Objectivist. And what I meant by that comment is
quite different from how you interpreted it.
> > Anyone who has ever browsed http://www.gnu.org can recognize the
> > organization as evil. That you can't really sums you up as far as I'm
> > concerned.
>
> You're either egregiously careless with your words, or extremely
> ignorant. The GPL is not an organization, it's GNU's license. GNU is
> not a license, it's an organization.
>
> GNU and FSF are evil--you got that much right--but that's not what
> this discussion is about.
An Objectivist would not divorce the GPL from the organization and goals it
was designed to further, and in fact does further.
Shayne Wissler
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> So, you agree that GNU is evil, but you're happy promoting their
> organization by using their license.
If their product is good, why not? When I buy something or use something
I do not vet the political or philosophical credentials of the creators.
I want the product, I pay for the product or obtain it for free if that
is possible.
For example, Vanessa Redgrave, the actress is a Trotskyite bitch and
very anti-Israel. But I pay to see her perform anyway because she is a
great actress. While I am being entertained by her, I do not think of
her politics. That is irrelevant to the entertainment.
There is no contradiction here at all. I want the product because of its
characteristic, not because I love the creator of the product or approve
of his opinions. I use FSF and GNU products that suit -my- needs. The
politics is irrelevent to me. I never boycott a product just because I
might disagree with the creator or poducer. I even shop at WalMart even
though the company cheats their illegal immigrant empolyees on their
wages. Tough shit on them. I even do business with Swiss Banks who
stored the gold fillings extracted from the mouths of Jews during the
Holocaust. Why? Because the offer me a service I need at a price I like.
Politics is irrelevent. I cannot let philosphical and political
disagreements stand in the way of commerce that is useful to me. If the
price is right and the product is good, I will do business with Jack the
Ripper or Al Capone.
Bob Kolker
Jason Hoetger
649$xy6.582729@attbi_s02>...
> organization by using their license.
I don't use their license in open-source software because I don't like
having their organization's name assosiated with my software. Renaming
it would solve most of that problem, since the license itself is not
evil.
> > Actually, you said that GNU's license, the GPL, is evil. Your exact
> > words were "The GNU license is about undermining intellectual
> > property. It's about
> > Marxism. It's an evil license." In fact, you never said GNU was evil
> > until just now. You've never backed up your claims about the GPL--have
> > you even read it?--with any sort of evidence, either. You just keep
> > repeating it: GPL is evil... GNU's license is evil... hoping it will
> > come true.
>
> The purpose of the GPL is to further GNU's evil goals. Apparently you agree
> that the goals are evil, but you divorce the means from the end. A bizzare
> thing to do for a supposed "Objectivist".
I've never attempted to justify GNU's use of the GPL. I do acknowledge
that good things can be used for evil purposes, and evil people can
occasionally do good things (usually by accident, as in GNU's case).
Neither Rand nor any other Objectivist have ever endorsed failing to
distinguish between the means and ends, declaring as a contextless
absolute that some means is evil simply because it can be used in some
given context to further some immoral end. That is outright idiocy.
> > Absolutely--Rand considered charity a (minor) virtue,
>
> Where does she say that charity is a virtue, minor or otherwise? Quotes
> please.
From ARI's website: '"My views on charity are very simple. I do not
consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a
moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and
when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I
regard charity as a marginal issue...." [From "Playboy's 1964
interview with Ayn Rand"]'
She also donated to charity, so obviously she thought it was a minor
virtue--in the proper context.
> > > Anyone who has ever browsed http://www.gnu.org can recognize the
> > > organization as evil. That you can't really sums you up as far as I'm
> > > concerned.
> >
> > You're either egregiously careless with your words, or extremely
> > ignorant. The GPL is not an organization, it's GNU's license. GNU is
> > not a license, it's an organization.
> >
> > GNU and FSF are evil--you got that much right--but that's not what
> > this discussion is about.
>
> An Objectivist would not divorce the GPL from the organization and goals it
> was designed to further, and in fact does further.
This is a smokescreen to cover up your earlier semantic
irresponsibility. An Objectivist would, in fact, evaluate the GPL on
its merits, just as an Objectivist would evaluate the morality of any
other tool on its merits, not on one specific application of it. It is
clear that an Objectivist would *not* drop context and assert that all
uses of the GPL are evil because GNU uses it for evil. It is as absurd
as claiming a gun is evil because a person uses it (or made it) for
evil purposes.
Jason Hoetger
Jason Hoetger
rp.supernews.com>...
> I've read it. I'm not sure what it actually does rises to the
> level of 'evil', something like it might serve a decent purpose
> in encouraging some developers to use open-source, since
> they may take comfort in the idea that they _might_ be able
> to sue someone without having to pay for their own license.
It also encourages companies to open their source, since the code
could not be used and/or marketed by a competitor, for instance.
> This kernel of potential value is all that makes the GPL popular
> at all. At the same time, I would be surprised to see a court
> uphold a significant case against someone not complying with
> the GPL, as it is worded.
The GPL was written with the help of a legal team, so I assume it's
pretty solid. Also, there are numerous large companies who currently
rely on it, like Novell, Red Hat, IBM, Sun, and several others who
would be unwilling to see the license go down in legal flames.
> Further, the text of the license is at least prefaced with muddled
> thinking and doublespeak.
This is certainly true, and also part of the reason I don't use it as
written. However, these flaws are relatively minor and I don't think,
as you said, it rises to the level of "evil".
Jason Hoetger
Shayne Wissler
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:5urQb.109885$5V2.508631@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> >
> > So, you agree that GNU is evil, but you're happy promoting their
> > organization by using their license.
>
> If their product is good, why not?
<snip of misunderstanding>
I was not referring to the act of using GNU-developed products. I actually
think that is fine. What I have a problem with is helping them to create
more GNU products, by using their license on your own work.
Shayne Wissler
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> I was not referring to the act of using GNU-developed products. I actually
> think that is fine. What I have a problem with is helping them to create
> more GNU products, by using their license on your own work.
If it promotes one's fame as a programmer and a designer, why not?
Bob Kolker
Shayne Wissler
> > So, you agree that GNU is evil, but you're happy promoting their
> > organization by using their license.
>
> I don't use their license in open-source software because I don't like
> having their organization's name assosiated with my software.
You "don't like" it... What is it, a mere personal preference whether you
associate yourself with evil?
> Renaming
> it would solve most of that problem, since the license itself is not
> evil.
If you did that, then it would not be the GNU license anymore. In any case,
you must not have read the license, which states:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> I've never attempted to justify GNU's use of the GPL. I do acknowledge
> that good things can be used for evil purposes, and evil people can
> occasionally do good things (usually by accident, as in GNU's case).
>
> Neither Rand nor any other Objectivist have ever endorsed failing to
> distinguish between the means and ends, declaring as a contextless
> absolute that some means is evil simply because it can be used in some
> given context to further some immoral end. That is outright idiocy.
The only thing that's outright idiocy here are your twisted interpretations
of what I'm saying. I don't object to you using a stapler that happened to
have belonged to GNU.
> > > Absolutely--Rand considered charity a (minor) virtue,
> >
> > Where does she say that charity is a virtue, minor or otherwise? Quotes
> > please.
>
> From ARI's website: '"My views on charity are very simple. I do not
> consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a
> moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and
> when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I
> regard charity as a marginal issue...." [From "Playboy's 1964
> interview with Ayn Rand"]'
>
> She also donated to charity, so obviously she thought it was a minor
> virtue--in the proper context.
This is all so wrong that it deserves its own thread. Apparently your
twisting of interpretations is not limited to my words.
> > > GNU and FSF are evil--you got that much right--but that's not what
> > > this discussion is about.
> >
> > An Objectivist would not divorce the GPL from the organization and goals
it
> > was designed to further, and in fact does further.
>
> This is a smokescreen to cover up your earlier semantic
> irresponsibility.
"Semantic irresponsibility"?
> An Objectivist would, in fact, evaluate the GPL on
> its merits, just as an Objectivist would evaluate the morality of any
> other tool on its merits, not on one specific application of it. It is
> clear that an Objectivist would *not* drop context and assert that all
> uses of the GPL are evil because GNU uses it for evil. It is as absurd
> as claiming a gun is evil because a person uses it (or made it) for
> evil purposes.
A gun (or a stapler) is not an advertisement and endorsement of GNU.
Shayne Wissler
Shayne Wissler
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
I'm sure Howard Roark would agree with you completely...
(Sarcasm, of course).
Shayne Wissler
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> I'm sure Howard Roark would agree with you completely...
What a fictional character would do or not do is rather irrelevent to
reality, don't you think?
FSF and GNU are not breaking any laws, nor are they comitting fraud. So
what is your beef?
Bob Kolker
Shayne Wissler
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > I'm sure Howard Roark would agree with you completely...
>
> What a fictional character would do or not do is rather irrelevent to
> reality, don't you think?
>
> FSF and GNU are not breaking any laws, nor are they comitting fraud. So
> what is your beef?
How long have you been hanging out here anyway? It seems like some of it
would have soaked in, even if it was only an understanding and not an
agreement.
Shayne Wissler
Shayne Wissler
> > So, you agree that GNU is evil, but you're happy promoting their
> > organization by using their license.
>
> I don't use their license in open-source software because I don't like
> having their organization's name assosiated with my software. Renaming
> it would solve most of that problem, since the license itself is not
> evil.
I thought this issue deserved its own post. I have already argued for why
the GPL is evil. The implicit question here is: Are the *terms* of the GPL
evil, on their own terms, ignoring the GNU organization. This is a separate
question, with a separate answer. And I say: Yes, the terms are indeed evil.
Why? Because, unlike many other, perfectly decent open-source licenses (like
the BSD license), it functions like a virus, which infects other sources it
comes into contact with, with the ultimate logical outcome of making all
software free, and putting an end to commercial software. It is inimical to
commercial software; that's what makes it evil.
Other licenses, like the BSD license, allow the user to incorporate the free
code into their own code, without fee, but usually with recognition of the
author. They place no additional constraints on the use, allowing commercial
companies to profit from the exchange. The terms of the GPL, in contrast,
disallow commercial use, unless the commercial company also makes their own
code "GPL open source". This creates a situation where the company must
write from scratch where other users can just make use of what is freely
available--either that or they must go out of business (or radically alter
it to be in line with the GPL). It specifically aims to slow down the
efforts of commercial software (not just Microsoft--*all* commercial
software).
This means that less commercial software is written. Since hobbyists and
communists are willing to write something for free, and what's more, have
extra leverage that commercial companies do not have, the commercial
companies choose to compete less often, prefering niches where the GPL has
not harmed the market.
But it should not be a surprise that an evil organization would create an
evil thing like the GPL.
Shayne Wissler
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> How long have you been hanging out here anyway? It seems like some of it
> would have soaked in, even if it was only an understanding and not an
> agreement.
If you mean that the principle persons of these organization do not like
the idea of intellectual property, so what? That is an opinion, not a
foul deed.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> How long have you been hanging out here anyway? It seems like some of it
> would have soaked in, even if it was only an understanding and not an
> agreement.
If you mean that the principle persons of these organization do not like
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
> Why? Because, unlike many other, perfectly decent open-source licenses (like
> the BSD license), it functions like a virus, which infects other sources it
> comes into contact with, with the ultimate logical outcome of making all
> software free, and putting an end to commercial software. It is inimical to
> commercial software; that's what makes it evil.
No problem. Simply do not assent to the terms of the license.
Bob Kolker
Jason Hoetger
720$I06.1258852@attbi_s01>...
> I thought this issue deserved its own post. I have already argued for why
> the GPL is evil. The implicit question here is: Are the *terms* of the GPL
> evil, on their own terms, ignoring the GNU organization. This is a separate
> question, with a separate answer. And I say: Yes, the terms are indeed evil.
>
> Why? Because, unlike many other, perfectly decent open-source licenses (like
> the BSD license), it functions like a virus, which infects other sources it
> comes into contact with, with the ultimate logical outcome of making all
> software free,
Excuse me? I haven't yet heard any reports of the GPL holding a gun to
developers' heads, focing them to release their code under it. Last
time I checked, authors were able to choose the license to use.
> Other licenses, like the BSD license, allow the user to incorporate the free
> code into their own code, without fee, but usually with recognition of the
> author. They place no additional constraints on the use, allowing commercial
> companies to profit from the exchange.
The only "exchange" here is one-way: commercial companies get code
without paying for it. Personally, I'm not willing to let other people
profit off *my* work unless I get a piece of the action, too. If other
people are, bully for them--they don't have to use the GPL.
> The terms of the GPL, in contrast,
> disallow commercial use, unless the commercial company also makes their own
> code "GPL open source". This creates a situation where the company must
> write from scratch where other users can just make use of what is freely
> available
That's right--a company must have permission from the author in order
to use his code. And if somebody doesn't want them to use it, they
can't. I fail to see the evil of controlling your work. You'd like
anybody who wants to release their source code to become the
uncompensated employees of any company that wants to use it.
> --either that or they must go out of business (or radically alter
> it to be in line with the GPL).
Again, where's the evil of this? If people are willing to supply their
product for free--of course they're going to go out of business. The
idea that this is somehow evil is akin to claiming volunteer
firefighters are evil because they crowd out commercial firefighting
services.
> It specifically aims to slow down the
> efforts of commercial software (not just Microsoft--*all* commercial
> software).
You're confused again--those are GNU's goals. The license can be used
for a variety of purposes.
> This means that less commercial software is written
...because it's been replaced by open-source software. So what?
> Since hobbyists and
> communists are willing to write something for free, and what's more, have
> extra leverage that commercial companies do not have, the commercial
> companies choose to compete less often, prefering niches where the GPL has
> not harmed the market.
The only extra "leverage" they have over commercial companies is
*permission* to use other people's source. I'd hardly call that evil,
nor harmful.
I'd also like to point out that companies like Trolltech have
successfully used the GPL to promote their commercial software. You
would have such companies release their product under "liberal"
licenses, essentially destroying the commercial value of their work by
giving their competitors free, unrestricted access to their source.
Yet you're the one complaining that the GPL "slows down the efforts of
commercial software".
Jason Hoetger
Jason Hoetger
Qb.112126$5V2.521958@attbi_s53>...
> If you mean that the principle persons of these organization do not like
> the idea of intellectual property, so what? That is an opinion, not a
> foul deed.
Simply because it's their opinion does not make it right, nor good. In
fact, opposing intellectual property is evil, the same as opposing any
property rights. Sanctioning their evil by supporting their efforts is
therefore also evil.
Jason Hoetger
Shayne Wissler
> > Why? Because, unlike many other, perfectly decent open-source licenses
(like
> > the BSD license), it functions like a virus, which infects other sources
it
> > comes into contact with, with the ultimate logical outcome of making all
> > software free,
>
> Excuse me? I haven't yet heard any reports of the GPL holding a gun to
> developers' heads, focing them to release their code under it. Last
> time I checked, authors were able to choose the license to use.
Nowhere did I mention force being used.
> > Other licenses, like the BSD license, allow the user to incorporate the
free
> > code into their own code, without fee, but usually with recognition of
the
> > author. They place no additional constraints on the use, allowing
commercial
> > companies to profit from the exchange.
>
> The only "exchange" here is one-way: commercial companies get code
> without paying for it.
You were the one touting all the benefits the author gets from making the
source open. Now you conveniently ignore them.
> Personally, I'm not willing to let other people
> profit off *my* work unless I get a piece of the action, too.
What action are you talking about?
> > The terms of the GPL, in contrast,
> > disallow commercial use, unless the commercial company also makes their
own
> > code "GPL open source". This creates a situation where the company must
> > write from scratch where other users can just make use of what is freely
> > available
>
> That's right--a company must have permission from the author in order
> to use his code. And if somebody doesn't want them to use it, they
> can't. I fail to see the evil of controlling your work.
I fail to see how you can possibly be honest. Obviously controlling ones
work is not evil, and just as obviously, that isn't even the issue being
discussed here.
> You'd like
> anybody who wants to release their source code to become the
> uncompensated employees of any company that wants to use it.
What does compensation have to do with the GPL?
> > --either that or they must go out of business (or radically alter
> > it to be in line with the GPL).
>
> Again, where's the evil of this? If people are willing to supply their
> product for free--of course they're going to go out of business. The
> idea that this is somehow evil is akin to claiming volunteer
> firefighters are evil because they crowd out commercial firefighting
> services.
I'd rather have professional firefighters on call if my house needs it. A
bunch of altruists who have nothing better to do with their time do not
inspire me to feel safe, that's for sure.
> > It specifically aims to slow down the
> > efforts of commercial software (not just Microsoft--*all* commercial
> > software).
>
> You're confused again--those are GNU's goals.
No, you're just constantly evading the point.
> The license can be used
> for a variety of purposes.
I see that you failed to address the fact that the GNU license may not be
modified.
> > This means that less commercial software is written
>
> ...because it's been replaced by open-source software. So what?
Exactly what is it about the functioning of capitalism that you do not
comprehend? One would expect not to have to explain its benefits to an
"Objectivist".
> > Since hobbyists and
> > communists are willing to write something for free, and what's more,
have
> > extra leverage that commercial companies do not have, the commercial
> > companies choose to compete less often, prefering niches where the GPL
has
> > not harmed the market.
>
> The only extra "leverage" they have over commercial companies is
> *permission* to use other people's source. I'd hardly call that evil,
> nor harmful.
It undermines the natural functioning of the market.
> I'd also like to point out that companies like Trolltech have
> successfully used the GPL to promote their commercial software. You
Before you were saying that you wouldn't use the GPL by name since it's
associated with an evil organization. Now you're using it as a positive
example. You're disoriented.
> would have such companies release their product under "liberal"
> licenses, essentially destroying the commercial value of their work by
> giving their competitors free, unrestricted access to their source.
I never said anything close to that, anywhere. You just rewrite reality to
fit your whims, as you've already demonstrated with your twisted
interpretation of Ayn Rand on charity. Apparently you also rewrite the GPL
to suit your whims too, even though it explicitly states that you are not
permitted to do that.
Shayne Wissler
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
> I'd rather have professional firefighters on call if my house needs it. A
> bunch of altruists who have nothing better to do with their time do not
> inspire me to feel safe, that's for sure.
1. Volunteer Firefighters have to pass certified firefighting course and
they have to be tested. They are not bumbling amateurs.
2. They are protecting their own property as well as other peoples. They
are rationally motivated and reasonably selfish. There is an old saying;
if you want something done right, do it yourself. That is exactly what
the volunteers are doing.
3. The equipment the volunteers use is not privately owned, it is
provided out of tax revenue.
4. Volunteer fire fighters are doing the same sort of service as people
who serve on juries or the Coast Guard. The are performing a necessary
service that they need and their neighbors need.
5. If you want to end up in a hospital go to a fire house manned by
volunteers and tell them what stupid altruists they are. They will give
you a response you won't like. Anyone who is willing to run into a
burning building when the natural impulse is to flee, ought to be
cherished, not insulted.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Jason Hoetger wrote:
> Simply because it's their opinion does not make it right, nor good. In
> fact, opposing intellectual property is evil, the same as opposing any
> property rights. Sanctioning their evil by supporting their efforts is
> therefore also evil.
Having an adverse opinion is not the same as interfering. I do not see
these people violating the property rights of others. Their opinion on
whether there ought to be intellectual property rights or not is of no
consequence. If they have something good they want to give to me for
free, I will take it. Never turn down a free lunch.
Their opinions on intellectual property has not made anyone bleed,
caused anyone's house burn, has not cheated widows and orphans of their
mite, and it has not taken bread from the mouth of laboring folk. Having
an opinion you don't approve of is not evil. Doing foul deeds is. Evil
is as evil -does- not as evil -opines-.
Bob Kolker
Shayne Wissler
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> 5. If you want to end up in a hospital go to a fire house manned by
> volunteers and tell them what stupid altruists they are.
In my neck of the woods, firemen are paid for their services (as it should
be).
Shayne Wissler
John Shafto
> If they have something good they want to give to me for
> free, I will take it. Never turn down a free lunch.
They will give you a free software license, if you give them
your code, your association, and your sanction.
Now, get busy writing that software Bob ;)
John Shafto
news:e4774c56.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Shayne Wissler <> wrote
> > Other licenses, like the BSD license, allow the user to incorporate the
> > free
> > code into their own code, without fee, but usually with recognition of the
> > author. They place no additional constraints on the use, allowing comme
> > rcial
> > companies to profit from the exchange.
>
> The only "exchange" here is one-way: commercial companies
> get code without paying for it.
Do you think Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Sun, etc. aren't getting GPL
code without paying for it? Hell, even MS can get code out
of GPL'ed source if they want it, it is open source after all.
> Personally, I'm not willing to let other people profit off *my*
> work unless I get a piece of the action, too.
But you seem to be willing to let GNU/FSF, among others,
profit from your work.
> If other people are, bully for them--they don't have to use
> the GPL.
That's right, they can write their own, or they can use
one of these instead: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
[...]
> I fail to see the evil of controlling your work.
I don't think anyone here thinks that is evil, the "special"
license providers over at GNU might think a little differently
though.
> You'd like anybody who wants to release their source code
> to become the uncompensated employees of any company
> that wants to use it.
That is inherent in open-source, best to not try and have your
cake and eat it too. If you want the advantages of opening
your source, you should accept that other people are going
to use it without paying you for it, including if you use the GPL.
If you think you can/should be paid for some of your source,
don't release it open source. Compile it for the platforms
you want to release it on, and sell it.
If you want to put stipulations on your open sourced code,
that is fine too, it doesn't hurt, but don't kid yourself into thinking
that the GPL is about anything but some organization looking
after it's own interests and leverage, while using all kinds of
twisted language and emotive moralistic spin to gain
developers acceptance.
Robert J. Kolker
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> In my neck of the woods, firemen are paid for their services (as it should
> be).
In the United States, both professional and volunteer companies do the
job. For a long time Costal Rescue was handled by volunteers (the Coast
Guard now does it). With the volunteers you also don't have any union
nonsense which is an advantage to the community.
What counts is
1. Having a properly trained force to fight fires and handle medical
emergencies.
2. Having people who are willing to do the job, either for pay or on a
volunteer basis.
3. Volunteers not only are guarding their own property, but by
volunteering they are keeping the taxes in the their community down.
They win and the rest of the town wins.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
John Shafto wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <> wrote
>
>
>>If they have something good they want to give to me for
>>free, I will take it. Never turn down a free lunch.
>
>
> They will give you a free software license, if you give them
> your code, your association, and your sanction.
Sounds like a fair trade. Code for code. One can either trade or buy.
What difference does it make?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
John Shafto wrote:
> If you want to put stipulations on your open sourced code,
> that is fine too, it doesn't hurt, but don't kid yourself into thinking
> that the GPL is about anything but some organization looking
> after it's own interests and leverage, while using all kinds of
> twisted language and emotive moralistic spin to gain
> developers acceptance.
Are these folks defrauding anyone? If not, what is your problem. No one
enters into the arrangement except by their own consent. No one if
forcing you to do business with them, so why squalk?
Bob Kolker
John Shafto
in message news:KhIQb.114459$5V2.569325@attbi_s53...
>
> Are these folks defrauding anyone? If not, what is your problem.
> No one enters into the arrangement except by their own consent.
> No one if forcing you to do business with them, so why squalk?
I'm all for "to each his own", and recognize that many people
are beyond hope...but...no one is forcing me to put a gun to my
head and pull the trigger either, but that won't stop me from
telling someone that it is the wrong thing to do.
This guy seems to recognize the evil in GNU, so it seems
worth it to express my views of their license to him.
Shlomi Fish
989$nt4.299616@attbi_s51>...
> "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> news:cf333042.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Preventing this
> > kind of absurdity is what the GNU license is about.
>
> The GNU license is about undermining intellectual property. It's about
> Marxism. It's an evil license.
>
First of all "intelluctual property" is an improper term. While
Copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. are all valid, it's harmful to
call all of them "intellectual property". This term should be avoided,
because it's not really equivalent to property either.
But more importantly the GNU General Public License is not about
undermining copyrights or about Marxism. It's about making sure that a
program will retain its open source nature and can only be used by
other open source programs. Otherwise, it is possible that it will be
closed or become inaccessible further along the line.
Whether a project creator desires commercializing his program later on
is something that he has to decide upon. You have plenty of licenses
to choose
in between the GPL and a public domain like license like the BSD or
MIT X11.
I personally used public domain-like licenses for projects I started,
but I agree that in some cases, the GPL is preferable.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Robert J. Kolker
John Shafto wrote:
>
> I'm all for "to each his own", and recognize that many people
> are beyond hope...but...no one is forcing me to put a gun to my
> head and pull the trigger either, but that won't stop me from
> telling someone that it is the wrong thing to do.
By all means, do. But unless you can find an evil action done by any of
these folks you rail against, don't say what they -do- is evil. Evil is
a predicate applying to deeds and actions.
I ask again have these folks at FSF and GNU set anyone's fields ablaze?
Cheated or defrauded working folk? Cheated or defrauded widowns and
orphans? Made anyone bleed? Threatened to do any of the above? If not,
you are blowing hot air.
>
> This guy seems to recognize the evil in GNU, so it seems
> worth it to express my views of their license to him.
O.K. You don't like their license. So don't do business with these
people on the basis of this license you disapprove of.
Evil is as evil -does-. When I speak of evil I speak of evil -deeds- or
the clear tne present danger of such -deeds-. What do you mean by evil?
Bob Kolker
John Shafto
news:deca99a9.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> But more importantly the GNU General Public License is not about
> undermining copyrights or about Marxism. It's about making sure that a
> program will retain its open source nature and can only be used by
> other open source programs. Otherwise, it is possible that it will be
> closed or become inaccessible further along the line.
It's when people say things like this that I think even license
is evil. Why the twisted thinking? Explain how the original
developer's release has become "inaccessible" when a future
developer decides to make some derivative work closed.
It sure sounds like the first developer (who initially uses the GPL)
is trying to make sure that the labor of subsequent developers
is entrapped by his licensing choices.
Developer A releases program X-------------------------------------------->
Developer B releases program X+a compiled--------------------------->
Both are still available, and it seems that developer X has
a huge advantage as far as market share.
> Whether a project creator desires commercializing his program later on
> is something that he has to decide upon. You have plenty of licenses
> to choose
> in between the GPL and a public domain like license like the BSD or
> MIT X11.
There are open-source licenses as strict or stricter than the GPL,
so the spectrum doesn't begin at the GPL.
Robert J. Kolker
John Shafto wrote:
> It's when people say things like this that I think even license
> is evil.
You misuse the word evil (again). Whose life and safety is at risk by
using the GPL? Where is the initiation of force? Besides, the GPL can be
used by those folk who are committed to open software on principle. The
others can forgo the GPL. So what is your beef?
Bob Kolker
Shayne Wissler
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
> John Shafto wrote:
>
> > It's when people say things like this that I think even license
> > is evil.
>
> You misuse the word evil (again).
No, you've just forgotten about what newsgroup you're in (again).
Objectivism does not constrain the word "evil" to initiation of force or
direct assaults on life and safety.
Shayne Wissler
John Shafto
in message news:n2UQb.116331$sv6.618298@attbi_s52...
>
>
>
> > It's when people say things like this that I think even license
> > is evil.
>
> You misuse the word evil (again). Whose life and safety is at risk by
> using the GPL? Where is the initiation of force?
The issue here is mostly about fraud, and
the consequences of certain actions.
GPL'ed software is not used by the commercial
(compiled) world, so it lessens the value of
open-source, very significantly IMV. It harms
open-source when people drink the Kool-aid and
accept the nonsense that comes out of GNU.
The GPL is not the essence of, or even entirely,
open source.
> Besides, the GPL can be used by those folk who are
> committed to open software on principle. The
> others can forgo the GPL.
I understand that Bob, have never said otherwise.
> So what is your beef?
I don't like misdirection and lying, and am not
afraid of saying so. What is your beef?
Robert J. Kolker
John Shafto wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote
> in message news:n2UQb.116331$sv6.618298@attbi_s52...
>
>>
>>John Shafto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's when people say things like this that I think even license
>>>is evil.
>>
>>You misuse the word evil (again). Whose life and safety is at risk by
>>using the GPL? Where is the initiation of force?
>
>
> The issue here is mostly about fraud, and
> the consequences of certain actions.
Specify the fraud then. Have either GNU or FSF done something legally
actionable? If you can't then retract the charge or admit you are
blowing wind.
Bob Kolker
John Shafto
>
>
> John Shafto wrote:
> > The issue here is mostly about fraud, and
> > the consequences of certain actions.
>
> Specify the fraud then.
That is what I have been doing, until you apparently
decided I shouldn't be doing it, and sidetracked me.
> Have either GNU or FSF done something legally
> actionable?
Legally actionable is not the same thing as wrong.
Deception and trickery are not always illegal.
Turn on your TV, listen to your radio, there are
countless adverts and politicians doing it right now.
> If you can't then retract the charge or admit you are
> blowing wind.
I'll take curtain number three, Bob.
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip[
> First of all "intelluctual property" is an improper term.
Your saying it does not make it so.
> But more importantly the GNU General Public License is not about
> undermining copyrights or about Marxism. It's about making sure that a
> program will retain its open source nature and can only be used by
> other open source programs. Otherwise, it is possible that it will be
> closed or become inaccessible further along the line.
The GPL is about hypocrisy. The FSF want to prevent people from
protecting their own IP rights. They do this by protecting the
IP rights of the FSF while pretending not to. A copyright
infringement lawsuit by the FSF is a truly amusing thing.
Socks
Jason Hoetger
407$I06.1317709@attbi_s01>...
> "Jason Hoetger" <ho...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:e4774c56.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Why? Because, unlike many other, perfectly decent open-source licenses
> (like
> > > the BSD license), it functions like a virus, which infects other sources
> it
> > > comes into contact with, with the ultimate logical outcome of making all
> > > software free,
> Nowhere did I mention force being used.
I don't know what you think a virus does--ask permission before
infecting its victims?
> > > Other licenses, like the BSD license, allow the user to incorporate the
> free
> > > code into their own code, without fee, but usually with recognition of
> the
> > > author. They place no additional constraints on the use, allowing
> commercial
> > > companies to profit from the exchange.
> >
> > The only "exchange" here is one-way: commercial companies get code
> > without paying for it.
>
> You were the one touting all the benefits the author gets from making the
> source open. Now you conveniently ignore them.
Nowhere did I mention commercial companies using your code *against
your will* as a benefit of open-source. If you want them to, and
choose the BSD license or any other liberal open-source license,
that's fine--but it's ridiculous to believe that that is always the
best solution.
> > Personally, I'm not willing to let other people
> > profit off *my* work unless I get a piece of the action, too.
>
> What action are you talking about?
The money off the sale, use or licensing of my code. If there's a
significant amnount of money to be made, I want it. If not, I'm happy
to let others use my code for free.
> > > The terms of the GPL, in contrast,
> > > disallow commercial use, unless the commercial company also makes their
> own
> > > code "GPL open source". This creates a situation where the company must
> > > write from scratch where other users can just make use of what is freely
> > > available
> >
> > That's right--a company must have permission from the author in order
> > to use his code. And if somebody doesn't want them to use it, they
> > can't. I fail to see the evil of controlling your work.
>
> I fail to see how you can possibly be honest. Obviously controlling ones
> work is not evil, and just as obviously, that isn't even the issue being
> discussed here.
The GPL gives a developer control of his source, more control than
various other liberal open source licenses. You oppose that additional
control, preferring that everybody either publish closed-source
software or allow anybody to use their code for any reason. This very
much *is* the issue being discussed here.
> > You'd like
> > anybody who wants to release their source code to become the
> > uncompensated employees of any company that wants to use it.
>
> What does compensation have to do with the GPL?
I've already explained this.
> > > --either that or they must go out of business (or radically alter
> > > it to be in line with the GPL).
> >
> > Again, where's the evil of this? If people are willing to supply their
> > product for free--of course they're going to go out of business. The
> > idea that this is somehow evil is akin to claiming volunteer
> > firefighters are evil because they crowd out commercial firefighting
> > services.
>
> I'd rather have professional firefighters on call if my house needs it. A
> bunch of altruists who have nothing better to do with their time do not
> inspire me to feel safe, that's for sure.
That's wonderful you feel that way, but it does not address the point.
There's nothing evil or wrong with volunteer firefighters (nor
hobbyist developers), so long as they're acting in their own
self-interest.
> > You're confused again--those are GNU's goals.
>
> No, you're just constantly evading the point.
There's no point to evade. The GPL is a tool. It does not have goals.
GNU is an organization. It has goals--which I've already said are
evil.
> > The license can be used
> > for a variety of purposes.
>
> I see that you failed to address the fact that the GNU license may not be
> modified.
I see that you failed to address the fact that the license can be used
for purposes other than altruism and advancing socialism.
I did not address your "point" because I did not ever advocate
changing, without GNU's permission, the GPL in any way.
> > > This means that less commercial software is written
> >
> > ...because it's been replaced by open-source software. So what?
>
> Exactly what is it about the functioning of capitalism that you do not
> comprehend?
The great virtue of capitalism is not that corporations exist, but
that people are free to trade. That you cannot comprehend that does
not surprise me.
> One would expect not to have to explain its benefits to an
> "Objectivist".
Ditto above.
> > The only extra "leverage" they have over commercial companies is
> > *permission* to use other people's source. I'd hardly call that evil,
> > nor harmful.
>
> It undermines the natural functioning of the market.
I'd think that an Objectivist would understand that there is no
intrinsic "natural functioning" of the market apart from the people
and products offered therein. This "natural functioning" nonsense is
exactly what enables collectivists to claim that central planning is
not only possible but preferable to market economies.
> > I'd also like to point out that companies like Trolltech have
> > successfully used the GPL to promote their commercial software. You
>
> Before you were saying that you wouldn't use the GPL by name since it's
> associated with an evil organization. Now you're using it as a positive
> example. You're disoriented.
I don't use the GPL because I don't want anybody to be mistaken that
I'm a crusading FSF socialist. I would use it (sometimes) if GNU
renamed it or dissociated it from themselves somehow, but kept all of
the terms the same, or if there were something else that made it clear
I did not support their goals.
My point, which you continue to evade, is that Trolltech has used the
GPL to *successfully* further commercial goals. Since Trolltech sells
commercial versions of their products to commercial companies, it's
very reasonable to assume they are not FSF-supporting leftists, but
rather are simply using the GPL as a convenient means of increasing
awareness and use (and hence commercial demand) of their software. I
consider this use, and any other use of the GPL in order to advance
the developers' rational self-interest, to be valid. I have never
advocated open source as an end in itself, divorced from the rational
self-interest of those publishing the software.
> > would have such companies release their product under "liberal"
> > licenses, essentially destroying the commercial value of their work by
> > giving their competitors free, unrestricted access to their source.
>
> I never said anything close to that, anywhere.
According to you, the GPL is evil because it "creates a situation
where the company must write from scratch where other users can just
make use of what is freely available." Then it logically follows that
you believe any license which charges companies to use otherwise open
source code is therefore evil. That's how Trolltech makes its
money--by charging companies to use the source they released under the
GPL. Any other license, which does not protect people's right to
prohibit others from using their source commercially, would wreck
Trolltech's business model.
I should also note that charging companies a different price from
end-users or hobbyist developers is simply a form of price
descrimination. It is common not only in the commercial software
industry but nearly every other industry as well. It is a feature, not
a vice, of capitalism.
Also, I'd like to point out that I consider prohibiting companies from
using one's code for no other reason than one's hatred for commercial
software to be evil. In fact, if one can conceivably make money off of
one's code by licensing it for a fee, refusing to do so would be
immoral in almost every circumstance. To the extent that people use
the GPL to further that goal, they are evil. But it is not the
license's fault.
> You just rewrite reality to
> fit your whims, as you've already demonstrated with your twisted
> interpretation of Ayn Rand on charity.
I stand by what I said and the sources I cited. If it is that
important to you, you can start a thread on the subject and I'll
discuss it.
> Apparently you also rewrite the GPL
> to suit your whims too, even though it explicitly states that you are not
> permitted to do that.
Again, I have never modified the GPL nor advocated doing so without
GNU's permission. You, as usual, are confused.
Jason Hoetger
Jason Hoetger
9a9.0401250...@posting.google.com>...
> > Marxism. It's an evil license.
>
> First of all "intelluctual property" is an improper term. While
> Copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. are all valid, it's harmful to
> call all of them "intellectual property". This term should be avoided,
> because it's not really equivalent to property either.
Intellectual property *is* property. It shares all the essential
characteristics of "regular" property, i.e., it is "the product of
man's mind". The fact that you cannot touch it is irrelevant.
> But more importantly the GNU General Public License is not about
> undermining copyrights or about Marxism. It's about making sure that a
> program will retain its open source nature and can only be used by
> other open source programs.
You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. Open source as an end
in itself is Marxism. The license doesn't have to be about that, but
unfortunately much of the time it is.
> Otherwise, it is possible that it will be
> closed or become inaccessible further along the line.
No, it's only possible that a "fork" of the program will become
inaccessible. Your program is perpetually open-source if you license
it under any open-source license.
There is nothing virtuous in open source itself; open sourcing your
code should be a means to some other end.
Jason Hoetger
Robert J. Kolker
Jason Hoetger wrote:
> Intellectual property *is* property. It shares all the essential
> characteristics of "regular" property, i.e., it is "the product of
> man's mind". The fact that you cannot touch it is irrelevant.
My house is property. If I don't have it someone else does. Are my ideas
property? If I tell you my ideas, -I still have them-. I have not given
my ideas up for sale, only representations of my ideas. That is the
main difference between Intellectual Property (so-called) and physical
property.
Now given that privileges can be created and enforced by law, what an
inventor or an author actually has, is the exclusive privilege of
selling copies of what he has created or invented. We sometimes refer to
these privileges as -rights-, as in patent-right or copyright. This
privilege is an artifact which gives the author, inventor or creator
some incentive to do more of the same and to offer the opportunity to
profit to those who have not yet written, created or invented. It is a
way of rewarding value add by way of creation or invention.
Bob Kolker
Shayne Wissler
> > Nowhere did I mention force being used.
>
> I don't know what you think a virus does--ask permission before
> infecting its victims?
Someone needs to give you a lesson in the function and purpose of metaphor.
Not me though...
> > You were the one touting all the benefits the author gets from making
the
> > source open. Now you conveniently ignore them.
>
> Nowhere did I mention commercial companies using your code *against
> your will* as a benefit of open-source.
Why would you make your source open, and not want commercial companies to
use it? I can understand the proposition that you wouldn't want them to use
it without fee, assuming your purpose is to profit from your code--but not
use it at all? I don't understand that.
> > > Personally, I'm not willing to let other people
> > > profit off *my* work unless I get a piece of the action, too.
> >
> > What action are you talking about?
>
> The money off the sale, use or licensing of my code. If there's a
> significant amnount of money to be made, I want it. If not, I'm happy
> to let others use my code for free.
Well that all sounds fine--but what does the GPL have to do with it?
> > I fail to see how you can possibly be honest. Obviously controlling ones
> > work is not evil, and just as obviously, that isn't even the issue being
> > discussed here.
>
> The GPL gives a developer control of his source, more control than
> various other liberal open source licenses. You oppose that additional
> control, preferring that everybody either publish closed-source
> software or allow anybody to use their code for any reason. This very
> much *is* the issue being discussed here.
I have no problem with "Not for profit use, if you want to use it
commercially contact the author." I still don't see what that has to do with
the GPL.
> > What does compensation have to do with the GPL?
>
> I've already explained this.
Sort of. You explained that *you* want to be compensated. I think that's
fine of course, I also think it has nothing to do with the GPL.
> > I'd rather have professional firefighters on call if my house needs it.
A
> > bunch of altruists who have nothing better to do with their time do not
> > inspire me to feel safe, that's for sure.
>
> That's wonderful you feel that way, but it does not address the point.
> There's nothing evil or wrong with volunteer firefighters (nor
> hobbyist developers), so long as they're acting in their own
> self-interest.
Well, I've learned that your scenario is a bit different than I originally
thought. It is not always good to volunteer just because you feel like it,
but if you're doing it to gain some skills that will later profit you, say,
then that's good.
> > > You're confused again--those are GNU's goals.
> >
> > No, you're just constantly evading the point.
>
> There's no point to evade. The GPL is a tool. It does not have goals.
> GNU is an organization. It has goals--which I've already said are
> evil.
The GPL explicitly refers to GNU. Using the GPL is an implicit endorsement
and sanction of that organization.
> I did not address your "point" because I did not ever advocate
> changing, without GNU's permission, the GPL in any way.
So you don't recall mentioning the fact that it could be rewritten or some
such?
> > Exactly what is it about the functioning of capitalism that you do not
> > comprehend?
>
> The great virtue of capitalism is not that corporations exist, but
> that people are free to trade. That you cannot comprehend that does
> not surprise me.
That you missed my point doesn't surprise me.
> > > The only extra "leverage" they have over commercial companies is
> > > *permission* to use other people's source. I'd hardly call that evil,
> > > nor harmful.
> >
> > It undermines the natural functioning of the market.
>
> I'd think that an Objectivist would understand that there is no
> intrinsic "natural functioning" of the market apart from the people
> and products offered therein.
People can behave rationally or not.
> This "natural functioning" nonsense is
> exactly what enables collectivists to claim that central planning is
> not only possible but preferable to market economies.
It is not collectivism to observe that some people make stupid decisions
based on irrational philosophies. It's collectivism to try to force them to
make the right ones.
> I don't use the GPL because I don't want anybody to be mistaken that
> I'm a crusading FSF socialist. I would use it (sometimes) if GNU
> renamed it or dissociated it from themselves somehow, but kept all of
They haven't done that! It sounds to me like your entire point here has been
a fantasy. No wonder we're having such a hard time communicating, I'm in the
real world and you're making yours up as you go.
I agree with the principle you seem to care about: Of course you should be
able to make your source available for free, for non-commercial use, so that
you can still get commercial companies to pay for it.
> My point, which you continue to evade, is that Trolltech has used the
> GPL to *successfully* further commercial goals.
So what?
> Since Trolltech sells
> commercial versions of their products to commercial companies, it's
> very reasonable to assume they are not FSF-supporting leftists, but
> rather are simply using the GPL as a convenient means of increasing
> awareness and use (and hence commercial demand) of their software. I
Pragmatism never appealed to me.
> > > would have such companies release their product under "liberal"
> > > licenses, essentially destroying the commercial value of their work by
> > > giving their competitors free, unrestricted access to their source.
> >
> > I never said anything close to that, anywhere.
>
> According to you, the GPL is evil because it "creates a situation
> where the company must write from scratch where other users can just
> make use of what is freely available." Then it logically follows
Your "logic" is not how I think--quit putting your words in my mouth.
<snip>
> > You just rewrite reality to
> > fit your whims, as you've already demonstrated with your twisted
> > interpretation of Ayn Rand on charity.
>
> I stand by what I said and the sources I cited. If it is that
> important to you, you can start a thread on the subject and I'll
> discuss it.
Your method for twisting Ayn Rand's words is of no interest to me.
Shayne Wissler
Drew R
state, "You deserve free software."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
However, open source and free software has its place. Linux or any
other OS as an upstart wants to gain market share. To do this it
needs to do something different. Redhat makes free software, but they
make it up on support. I would compare this to the deal to get you in
the store. You know, those rebates that make 50 CD-Rs free. Free
software gets you in the door, you stay for the support, manuals, and
custom programming. If it is a workable business model, good for
them.
Drew Rawlings
Robert J. Kolker
Drew R wrote:
> There is no doubt that the organization of GNU is evil. They even
> state, "You deserve free software."
Then don't do business with them.
Bob Kolker
Jason Hoetger
865$na.265356@attbi_s04>...
> Someone needs to give you a lesson in the function and purpose of metaphor.
> Not me though...
What exactly were you trying to achieve calling the GPL a "virus"
which "infects"? At the very least, you're guilty of careless use of a
metaphor.
> Why would you make your source open, and not want commercial companies to
> use it? I can understand the proposition that you wouldn't want them to use
> it without fee, assuming your purpose is to profit from your code--but not
> use it at all? I don't understand that.
If you *were* a commercial company and didn't want your open source to
be used to produce a profit for your competitors, is one possible
explanation. I already stated that hatred for commercial software
companies is not a valid reason for closing your source to commercial
companies.
> > The money off the sale, use or licensing of my code. If there's a
> > significant amnount of money to be made, I want it. If not, I'm happy
> > to let others use my code for free.
>
> Well that all sounds fine--but what does the GPL have to do with it?
I'd think this would be pretty obvious: if after you release your
source under the GPL you find that it is commercially viable, or that
the exposure it gets from being GPL makes it commercially viable, you
can relicense it and sell it commercially for a profit.
> > The GPL gives a developer control of his source, more control than
> > various other liberal open source licenses. You oppose that additional
> > control, preferring that everybody either publish closed-source
> > software or allow anybody to use their code for any reason. This very
> > much *is* the issue being discussed here.
>
> I have no problem with "Not for profit use, if you want to use it
> commercially contact the author." I still don't see what that has to do with
> the GPL.
See above.
> > > What does compensation have to do with the GPL?
> >
> > I've already explained this.
>
> Sort of. You explained that *you* want to be compensated. I think that's
> fine of course, I also think it has nothing to do with the GPL.
You're wrong. See above.
Note that I do not defend immoral uses of the GPL by those who *do*
hate commercial software.
> > There's no point to evade. The GPL is a tool. It does not have goals.
> > GNU is an organization. It has goals--which I've already said are
> > evil.
>
> The GPL explicitly refers to GNU. Using the GPL is an implicit endorsement
> and sanction of that organization.
No, using a product (especially one which merely "refers" to an evil
organization) is not a sanction of that organization. It should be
especially clear that you do not sanction GNU if you are selling your
source to commercial companies simultaneously. You are not giving them
support either morally or financially.
> > I did not address your "point" because I did not ever advocate
> > changing, without GNU's permission, the GPL in any way.
>
> So you don't recall mentioning the fact that it could be rewritten or some
> such?
I never mentioned unilaterally rewriting it, though actually GNU would
probably let you do this, since they've allowed people to change their
license in the past. They might not even care if you change the
license, so long as you do not claim that it is the GNU Public
License.
> > > Exactly what is it about the functioning of capitalism that you do not
> > > comprehend?
> >
> > The great virtue of capitalism is not that corporations exist, but
> > that people are free to trade. That you cannot comprehend that does
> > not surprise me.
>
> That you missed my point doesn't surprise me.
Again, you had no point that was relevant to the discussion.
> People can behave rationally or not.
And what does that have to do with the GPL, in the uses of it I've
shown to be moral?
> > This "natural functioning" nonsense is
> > exactly what enables collectivists to claim that central planning is
> > not only possible but preferable to market economies.
>
> It is not collectivism to observe that some people make stupid decisions
> based on irrational philosophies. It's collectivism to try to force them to
> make the right ones.
Fair enough.
> > I don't use the GPL because I don't want anybody to be mistaken that
> > I'm a crusading FSF socialist. I would use it (sometimes) if GNU
> > renamed it or dissociated it from themselves somehow, but kept all of
>
> They haven't done that! It sounds to me like your entire point here has been
> a fantasy.
As I have stated and provided examples of repeatedly, there are
current moral uses of the GPL.
> I agree with the principle you seem to care about: Of course you should be
> able to make your source available for free, for non-commercial use, so that
> you can still get commercial companies to pay for it.
Which the GPL enables you to do. So the *terms* of it must not be
evil.
> > My point, which you continue to evade, is that Trolltech has used the
> > GPL to *successfully* further commercial goals.
>
> So what?
So, the GPL doesn't have to be about preventing commercial use of
code. Also, it should be pretty clear that Trolltech does not support
GNU's evil objectives.
> > Since Trolltech sells
> > commercial versions of their products to commercial companies, it's
> > very reasonable to assume they are not FSF-supporting leftists, but
> > rather are simply using the GPL as a convenient means of increasing
> > awareness and use (and hence commercial demand) of their software. I
>
> Pragmatism never appealed to me.
I fail to see what your view of pragmatism has to do with this
discussion.
> > According to you, the GPL is evil because it "creates a situation
> > where the company must write from scratch where other users can just
> > make use of what is freely available." Then it logically follows
>
> Your "logic" is not how I think--quit putting your words in my mouth.
Then please explain under what terms Trolltech or anybody interested
in profiting from their source should release their code, and how that
does not "create a situation where the company must write from scratch
where other users can just make use of what is freely
available"--especially those companies who are unwilling to pay the
asking price for source.
Jason Hoetger
Jason Hoetger
Rb.124980$nt4.552149@attbi_s51>...
> My house is property. If I don't have it someone else does. Are my ideas
> property? If I tell you my ideas, -I still have them-. I have not given
> my ideas up for sale, only representations of my ideas. That is the
> main difference between Intellectual Property (so-called) and physical
> property.
No, that is a difference, but it is not an essential difference.
Jason Hoetger
Shayne Wissler
news:<dFbRb.157
> 865$na.265356@attbi_s04>...
> > Someone needs to give you a lesson in the function and purpose of
metaphor.
> > Not me though...
>
> What exactly were you trying to achieve calling the GPL a "virus"
> which "infects"? At the very least, you're guilty of careless use of a
> metaphor.
Your illogical thought processes are made all too clear here: "I don't know
what you mean. Therefore you spoke carelessly."
Shayne Wissler
Jason Hoetger
123$na.285721@attbi_s04>...
> > What exactly were you trying to achieve calling the GPL a "virus"
> > which "infects"? At the very least, you're guilty of careless use of a
> > metaphor.
>
> Your illogical thought processes are made all too clear here: "I don't know
> what you mean. Therefore you spoke carelessly."
And yet you continue to refuse to clarify your meaning. What are you
trying to hide?
Meanwhile, everything else I said goes unanswered. I guess admitting
you're wrong requires *integrity*, something you clearly lack.
Jason Hoetger
Shayne Wissler
> Shayne Wissler <thalesN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<rpRRb.176
> 123$na.285721@attbi_s04>...
>
> > > What exactly were you trying to achieve calling the GPL a "virus"
> > > which "infects"? At the very least, you're guilty of careless use of a
> > > metaphor.
> >
> > Your illogical thought processes are made all too clear here: "I don't
know
> > what you mean. Therefore you spoke carelessly."
>
> And yet you continue to refuse to clarify your meaning.
You need a lot more work than I have time for.
> What are you trying to hide?
More illogical leaps of the same class. You never learn, do you?
> Meanwhile, everything else I said goes unanswered.
I have just gotten tired of your ridiculously liberal interpretations of
what I write. Why bother explaining something to someone who thinks they're
a mind-reader?
> I guess admitting
> you're wrong requires *integrity*, something you clearly lack.
Actually, it's all about integrity to rational principles, in this case, the
principle that I don't waste my time on a numbskull.
Shayne Wissler
puppe...@hotmail.com
Rb.124980$nt4.552149@attbi_s51>...
> Now given that privileges can be created and enforced by law, what an
> inventor or an author actually has, is the exclusive privilege of
> selling copies of what he has created or invented. We sometimes refer to
> these privileges as -rights-, as in patent-right or copyright. This
> privilege is an artifact which gives the author, inventor or creator
> some incentive to do more of the same and to offer the opportunity to
> profit to those who have not yet written, created or invented. It is a
> way of rewarding value add by way of creation or invention.
You have some things backwards here. Copyright does not *give* these
rights. Copyright *recognizes* these rights and makes them explicit
rather than implicit. You have these rights implicitly.
In the sense you are talking about, all rights are artifacts.
Dogs do not have rights. The concept of "rights" is a human
concept. As such, it is an artifact. That is no different
for IP rights as opposed to other rights.
Socks
Starblade Darksquall
515...@posting.google.com>...
How about protecting your work, not from being used by those who did
not pay for your intellectual labor, but by those who would use your
intellectual labor, indirectly, and profit not just from selling the
product, but from preventing those ahead of them from MAKING A
DERIVATIVE WORK FOR ANY REASON!
Let's look at four situations:
A) In an open source work, the person who uses your work may in fact
chose to make derivative works of their own, but they simply are not
allowed to rerelease those works outside of the context of a given
liscence.
B) In 'closed source' work, the person who uses your work is an end
user. They cannot develop their own works no matter what purpose.
C) In a public domain work, the person who uses your work may do
whatever they want with it, INCLUDING making a derivative work and
copyrighting it.
0) Nothing else happens with a work, not because of choice, but
because nobody is allowed to.
And, of course, "->", which represents the fact that a work leads to
another. For example, x -> y means that work x will lead to work y.
Now, let's trace the path of an intellectual work, shall we?
A -> (A). (A person who uses your work may chose to reproduce the work
only within the context of the liscence, or they may chose not to
reproduce the work, merely to enjoy it, but nevertheless, they can
choose to reproduce the work)
B -> (0) (A person may chose to enjoy the work, but may not reproduce
it... at least, not without the author's consent. They may also not
make derivative works without the author's consent. Of course,
copyrights eventually expire. But that takes so long, that idea can be
discounted.)
C -> (A, B, C) (A person may do WHATEVER they want with the work.)
0 -> () (This means that nothing happens. The train of intellectual
work stops there. This means that intellectual progress has ended.)
Now, let * represent a single chain of effect, from any one point to
any other point. For example, C->C->C->A->A means that C*A is true,
because such a chain would be posible. Or, C->B->0, which is
represented as C*0. Or A->A->A->A->0, which is represented as A*0.
Now, from this, we see that we can make a table of possibilities,
along with a true or false value, T or F respectively. Starting points
will be on the left, whereas ending points will be at the top.
ABC0
----
A|TFFF|
B|FFFT|
C|TTTF|
0|FFFF|
----
Now, 0 can't even lead to 0, because it's just a null point. C can
lead to A, B, or C, which is obvious. But people aren't restricted
from using the work. B does not lead to anything but 0. A may only
lead to A.
Now, let's take 0 to be an evil. Let's also take x to be evil where
x*0 = True. This means that if y*0 = True and x*y = True then x*0 =
True and is therefore evil. Now, as we can see, 0 is itself evil. B is
evil because C*0 is true. What about C? Now you may think that C is
good, but it is not. It is also evil, because B*0 is True. This is
true because B->C is possible and C->0 is possible, therefore C*0 is
True. What about A? A*0 does not seem to be true. After all, A->0 is
never true, due to the nature of A. What about A->B? Well, that's also
not true, it can't happen, due to the nature of A. What about A->C?
Well, that's also not true. So A*A is the only thing that is true.
This is because A->A is the only thing that is possible. Or, in
otherwords, A = A. ;)
To me, it sounds like open source is the only way of releasing certain
works which does not lead to 0, which means progress on the work is
halted for a given number of years.
Now, let's call progress P. 0&P = False. So if one values progress,
one must respectively disvalue 0, or anything that leads to 0, which
necessarily includes B, and even C. However, the idea of copyright is
that one may take the products of past progress and create temporary
present progress, but not let the temporary progress lead to future
progress. On the other hand, the idea of open source is that progress
can not and should not be halted. So 0 = !P. Let me then explain
something. x is copyright... so P->x, however, x->!P, so through x,
P->x->!P, so x has destroyed progress. That means x is evil.
Of course, taking Ayn Rand's definition of evil to be agent relative,
one cannot justify destroying copyright merely because it is evil to
one person, because if it is good to another then one should be
allowed to pursue it for themself.
So you see, open source, far from being evil, is actually the only
good way to release software, or any other good that has as its prime
value the fact that it may be remanipulated to make a better work off
of the original work, or by using the original work.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Starblade Darksquall
515...@posting.google.com>...
> 9a9.0401250...@posting.google.com>...
> > > The GNU license is about undermining intellectual property. It's about
> > > Marxism. It's an evil license.
> >
> > First of all "intelluctual property" is an improper term. While
> > Copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. are all valid, it's harmful to
> > call all of them "intellectual property". This term should be avoided,
> > because it's not really equivalent to property either.
>
> Intellectual property *is* property. It shares all the essential
> characteristics of "regular" property,
That is FALSE. Even Ayn Rand explained it this way: Intellectual
property is a static right to a dynamic good, while other forms of
property are a dynamic right to a static good.
When you own a rock, you can do whatever you want with the rock: You
can throw it, pet it, lick it, use it to try to create fire, or simply
store it, indefinately, or give somebody else the rock to store for
you, or give it to your heirs. But the rock is only in one place at
one time. It is not at several places at several times.
Intellectual property does not have these characteristics. Oh, sure,
you can make your own story using whatever you had, but once you
release it, you can't just call all those copies back. But you can
prevent others from copying it. You can also chose to sell the rights
to somebody else. However, this only lasts for a limited time.
i.e., it is "the product of
> man's mind". The fact that you cannot touch it is irrelevant.
>
What about a brain cell? One owns ones own brain cells, and the other
brain cells in your head touch it. A brain cell, or set of brain
cells, may contain a neurological conceptual representation of an
idea. So in that sense, the idea as a floating platonian ideal is not
touched, but that neuron which physically embodies an idea can be
touched, and it is physically owned.
> > But more importantly the GNU General Public License is not about
> > undermining copyrights or about Marxism. It's about making sure that a
> > program will retain its open source nature and can only be used by
> > other open source programs.
>
> You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. Open source as an end
> in itself is Marxism. The license doesn't have to be about that, but
> unfortunately much of the time it is.
>
Okay, so if we use open source, we're suddenly Marxists? How does that
follow?
> > Otherwise, it is possible that it will be
> > closed or become inaccessible further along the line.
>
> No, it's only possible that a "fork" of the program will become
> inaccessible. Your program is perpetually open-source if you license
> it under any open-source license.
>
Hello? That's the whole freaking point!
> There is nothing virtuous in open source itself; open sourcing your
> code should be a means to some other end.
>
Yes, facilitating /perpetual/ human progress. If you create an
original work, then shouldn't you be able to release it however you
see fit? Shouldn't that include open sourcing it? Furthermore, if one
does not wish to be required to open source the products of
intellectual labor generated from the original, then one should not
come into contact with the original. Furthermore, the work can be
copied indefinately, just as long as they contain the original
liscence attached to it. So, if you create a work, others may benefit
from it, and you may benifit back from what they do with the work. No
money has to be transferred, because you each benefit eachother. It's
just like if some own beef and others own corn. They exchange with
eachother, and both benefit off of the exchange.
> Jason Hoetger
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Starblade Darksquall
Rb.124980$nt4.552149@attbi_s51>...
The difference between a copyright and a patent is... with a
copyright, all government is doing is assuming that there is a set of
conditions for showing an intellectual good to others. If you do not
want to be bound, then in most cases one can simply decide not to view
it. Of course, I think it's the burden on the producers not to
voulenteer the information for free, but that's my POV. Then, I could
always get a good independently produced by others from them, and get
a better deal. No matter how similar the works are, as long as the one
was not derived from the other, no right has been violated. This is an
illegalization of 'theft', that is, an ACT of theft, not simply of
producing a similar work to another.
This is not so for patents. A patent gives someone rights to that
which is covered by the patent not because it holds human knowledge of
a useful purpose to which nature may be put, as patents should be, but
because it represents the purpose to which nature may be put itself,
and anybody engaging in that purpose, whether or not they established
it for themselves independently, is prevented from doing so. What we
should first be doing is defining a 'theft' of a patent as taking an
invention and copying it, rather than simply inventing and producing
on ones own what was already invented. Of course, this would mean
patents would also not be published, and one may also stop a
publication of a patent, as that embodies the same human knowledge.
One then, is, to engage in exchange with another. One agrees to let
another look at the publication, and in turn, the other agrees not to
use the idea for themself.
I don't see why we have to apply monopoly rules at all. Why don't we
consider them essentially the same idea but being applied differently?
And where does this idea actually come from? One can essentially
derive it from the right to control the initial release of the work,
and to only give initial release to those who agree to be bound by the
tenets of extended control.
Of course, some right of privacy - as a REAL right, like the one to
life, liberty, property, and perhaps the more abstract pursuit of
hapiness, as well as to contract - will have to be associated with the
right of initial release, as well as the right that the persons you
are agreeing with that may be transferred to you for a given work, so
that if they rerelease the work they're violating your right, and so
is someone else for snooping.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Robert J. Kolker
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> Intellectual property does not have these characteristics. Oh, sure,
> you can make your own story using whatever you had, but once you
> release it, you can't just call all those copies back. But you can
> prevent others from copying it. You can also chose to sell the rights
> to somebody else. However, this only lasts for a limited time.
>
There is no practical way to prevent someone from making a copy for his
own use. If one owns a copying machine, he can borrow a book from the
library and burn his own personal hard copy. There is nothing on earth
that can effectively prevent this. Who is going to know of the personal
copy?
When a movie appears on HBO or Cinemax there is a warning not to make a
tape of it. Has that ever stopped anyone from doing so? If there is no
practical way of enforcing a law or a rule or punishing a breach
thereof, the law or rule is effectively moot and void.
Bob Kolker
Starblade Darksquall
Ub.97937$U%5.487444@attbi_s03>...
So, basically, the law is not to let anybody find out about it, then?
The thing with intellectual property is that the thing being held as
property isn't naturally conserved.
I think as a rule, in order for something to be property, it has to be
capable of commodification. That is, for the purposes one intends to
use it, it must be naturally capable of being used in that reguard. It
seems to me that in the case of intellectual property, rather than
devising a system that relies on the freedom to make choices and
responsibility thereof of producers and consumers with respect to
commodification, we're simply instituting a government boondoggle
where a much simpler answer might very well be not only sufficient,
but more efficient and much more workable by the free market.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)