Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
humanities.philosophy.objectivism
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Objectivism and Open-Source
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Kaz Kylheku  
View profile  
 More options Jan 23 2004, 11:41 am
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
From: Kaz Kylheku <k...@ashi.footprints.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:41:21 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri, Jan 23 2004 11:41 am
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Open-Source
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
John Shafto <gro.otf...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message <news:1011dr2bh1dqg02@co

rp.supernews.com>...

> "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
> news:cf333042.0401221138.b55898e@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.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google