Re: Plan 9 license

[Mark Wells]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Ken Arromdee wrote:

> > "Because the automobile is widespread, we in the buggy-whip industry do
> > not have the potential market that we had before.  That market has been
> > stolen from us."
> 
> I wasn't agreeing that such things are stolen, I was pointing out that the
> definition has a hole in it--it doesn't define "stolen" the way you'd want.
> *I* wouldn't consider this stealing, but your definition does.

I'm sorry, I should have been more direct in my answer.

A market is not property; therefore it can't be stolen.

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Another 18th century term for property was "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Unlikely.  "Happiness" in this context almost certainly means "public
> happiness", the participation in republican governmental institutions.

Considering that "life, liberty and property" was a catch-phrase of the
American revolutionaries, and referred to the natural and unalienable
rights of peole, it seems natural to assume that "pursuit of happiness"
meant "property" in the context of the Declaration of Independence. To
quote form an essay by Jack Hitt ,

"Yet it's puzzling why Jefferson didn't simply lift Locke's familiar
and felicitous phrase and drop it into place. Some people believe that
is more or less what he did. Newspaper columnist William Safire
dismisses the phrase as nothing more than an "inspirational lift,"
adding, then, that a "euphemism started the trouble."
Euphemism? Was Jefferson really just trying to find some prettier
synonym for "property"? Those who knew, and agreed with, Jefferson's
own ideal of limited government would argue that any government's sole
job is merely to protect our ability to accumulate property. The
marketplace will resolve all other matters of conflict. The framers of
the Constitution believed, like Locke, that governments are instituted
to protect the good and productive citizen-his life, liberty, and
property. Nothing more." 

> > "right of property" is a dangerous concept, meaning that someone else
> > can be compelled to hand over their property to you, whereas the right
> > to pursue property  means that you can use voluntary means to acquire
> > property but cannot coerce it from anyone.
> 
> Coercion, like property, can only be defined within the context of a
> specific legal system.  It has no natural existence.

But we have a legal system, and even without it, we still have a
dictionary. Call it whatever you want, if someone compells me against
my will I will name it coercion.

> Hmp.  Just try defending property rights in -- or even the existence of --
> stock certificates in the absence of a legal system.

In the absence of a legal system I will have much bigger things to
worry about than stock certificates, like how to keep Thog from taking
the flint spearhead I spent a week making. Even anarchistic
(not nihilistic) societies have legal systems. If you and I have a
disagreement, and we go to a third person to settle the matter, we have
a legal system.

> > But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software
> > developers can still privately protect their works.
> 
> Indeed, the copyright license for closed-source software is no problem:
> "All rights reserved".  Since you do not own the software anyway,
> your other rights don't exist.

Using copyright to protect your work is *not* privately protecting it.
I meant stuff like contracts, encryption, registration, etc. Or in
other words, the intellectual equivalent of locks and fences.

> "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights."
>   -- the GNU GPL

Ah! Sounds like RMS is asserting ownership rights over his software! If
software should not be owned then why the hell does the author restrict
me?

> > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?
> 
> You cannot create a "public domain binary" of a copyrighted work, since
> it is a derivative work and you cannot dedicate it to the public domain
> (even assuming that it is possible to do so at all).

??? So what? Assume that I licensed under the MIT, or even freer
license. Or assume that you are right and software cannot be owned and
copyrights are repealed tomorrow and anarchy is instituted Tuesday,
which lapses into a state where there is no legal system on Wednesday,
and I distribute a binary of my own work on Thursday. Why is my work
considered non-free? What freedoms have I taken from you?

> > Getting back to freedom as I finish off this rant, tell me how I am
> > denying you life, liberty or property when you have voluntarily and of
> > sound mind purchased my proprietary and closed source software, knowing
> > full well in advance that you would not be able to modify and
> > redistribute it? How can I possibly be coercing you if the exchange was
> > completely open and voluntary?
> 
> If it were *completely* open and voluntary, you couldn't.  Few transactions
> actually meet that standard.  Typical shrink-wrap contracts are
> not only contracts of adhesion ("take it or leave it") but are not
> even known to you until you have purchased the software.

I didn't mention shrink-wrap. I vehemently disagree with shrink-wrap
licensing. But this is a side issue that has nothing to do with whether
proprietary software coerces you. By "open" I meant that I disclosed to
you the product, p

Re: Plan 9 license

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
> > > Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> > > original owner still have it?
> > Doesn't work.  "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I
> > do not have the potential market that I did before.  That market has been
> > stolen from me."
> "Because the automobile is widespread, we in the buggy-whip industry do
> not have the potential market that we had before.  That market has been
> stolen from us."

I wasn't agreeing that such things are stolen, I was pointing out that the
definition has a hole in it--it doesn't define "stolen" the way you'd want.
*I* wouldn't consider this stealing, but your definition does.

Re: Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> Another 18th century term for property was "pursuit of happiness".

Unlikely.  "Happiness" in this context almost certainly means "public
happiness", the participation in republican governmental institutions.

> "right of property" is a dangerous concept, meaning that someone else
> can be compelled to hand over their property to you, whereas the right
> to pursue property  means that you can use voluntary means to acquire
> property but cannot coerce it from anyone.

Coercion, like property, can only be defined within the context of a
specific legal system.  It has no natural existence.

>  But another definition of property is that it can be defended
> and controlled through voluntary means. In terms of land ownership, it
> can be defended and controlled in the absence of trespass laws through
> the use of locks, fences and guards. Likewise, information can be
> defended in the absence of IP laws through encryption, registration and
> time limitations.

Hmp.  Just try defending property rights in -- or even the existence of --
stock certificates in the absence of a legal system.

> Since information has been created by the author and
> can be defended by the author, it counts as a form of property.

IP rights only become significant when the content *is* publicly
known.  Secret books aren't that useful or profitable.

> But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software
> developers can still privately protect their works.

Indeed, the copyright license for closed-source software is no problem:
"All rights reserved".  Since you do not own the software anyway,
your other rights don't exist.

> What I find most interesting though is the relationship between Free
> Software (as the FSF defines it) and property. By licensing Free
> Software, ownership over it *is* asserted. If no one should have the
> right to regulate how I distribute or modify their works, then why
> don't I have the right to distribute a binary-only modification of
> emacs?

"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights."
-- the GNU GPL

> Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?

You cannot create a "public domain binary" of a copyrighted work, since
it is a derivative work and you cannot dedicate it to the public domain
(even assuming that it is possible to do so at all).

> Getting back to freedom as I finish off this rant, tell me how I am
> denying you life, liberty or property when you have voluntarily and of
> sound mind purchased my proprietary and closed source software, knowing
> full well in advance that you would not be able to modify and
> redistribute it? How can I possibly be coercing you if the exchange was
> completely open and voluntary?

If it were *completely* open and voluntary, you couldn't.  Few transactions
actually meet that standard.  Typical shrink-wrap contracts are
not only contracts of adhesion ("take it or leave it") but are not
even known to you until you have purchased the software.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
--Eric Raymond

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:

> > IP rights are monopolistic, but so are ordinary property rights: if
> > I own land, I have the exclusive right to make what use of it I like
> 
> They're monopolistic with respect to a specific object.  They're not
> monopolistic with respect to all objects of a certain type.  An oil
> company might own many oil wells and a large amount of oil, but it can't
> assert ownership over all oil everywhere.

But I can assert ownership over the specific software I have created,
but I have no say over the software created by others. I can certainly
assert ownership over my software, either using public/government
means such as copyright, or by private means such as a contracting out
copies of it.

References to peruse on this topic, from a libertarian/anarchist
perspective, see 
(Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts) and
 (Intellectual Property:
The Late Nineteenth Century Libertarian Debate).

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Plan 9 license

[Mark Wells]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:

> I think that both you and your putative intellectual opponents need
> a better schema.  Check out the classical Hohfeld schema at
> http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/Syllabi/Hohfeld.htm and come back when
> you believe you understand it.

It's fairly straightforward.

> > Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> > original owner still have it?
> 
> That won't do: it works only for material objects.
> In particular, IP rights are the rights to exploit something commercially.

That's exactly my point.  Material objects have mutually exclusive uses.  
Therefore, it is possible for someone to violate my right to my property
by using it in a way that excludes the way I want to use it.  Theft is one
form of this; trespassing and vandalism are others.

> > The "intellectual property" myth was invented for the convenience of a few
> > people who thought "enforced monopoly" sounded too blunt.
> 
> IP rights are monopolistic, but so are ordinary property rights: if
> I own land, I have the exclusive right to make what use of it I like

They're monopolistic with respect to a specific object.  They're not
monopolistic with respect to all objects of a certain type.  An oil
company might own many oil wells and a large amount of oil, but it can't
assert ownership over all oil everywhere.

> (subject to a few restrictions).  If you build a shack on the corner
> of my farm, you have not "stolen my land", but my property rights
> are invaded nonetheless.

That's right.  I've restricted your ability to use your land.  It would be
very difficult for me to similarly restrict your ability to use your
software.

> > The purpose of property rights is to settle disputes among parties who
> > want to use an object in different and mutually exclusive ways.  For
> > intellectual constructs there is no mutual exclusion.  If you write a
> > network driver, and I make a copy and modify it to handle a different
> > protocol, you don't have to use my version.  You're still entirely free to
> > do what you want with the driver as you wrote it.
> 
> Except sell it (and its variants) where and how I choose.

You _can_ sell it.  You just can't dictate how _I_ can sell it, which is a
different matter.

Re: Plan 9 license

[Mark Wells]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Ken Arromdee wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
> > Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> > original owner still have it?
> 
> Doesn't work.  "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I
> do not have the potential market that I did before.  That market has been
> stolen from me."

That's been the complaint of everyone who's had to face the reality of
competition.

"Because the automobile is widespread, we in the buggy-whip industry do
not have the potential market that we had before.  That market has been
stolen from us."

And, before that,

"Because sunlight is widely available, we in the candle industry do not
have the potential market that we would have without it.  That market has
been stolen from us."

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> 
> > > > To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
> > > > of the creator.
> > > 
> > > This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom".  
> > freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want.
> > I do not know of any other definition.
> 
> There _are_ other definitions, such as those (common in some political
> circles) that distinguish between "Negative Freedom" (the kind you
> describe) and "Positive Freedom" (a nebulous concept involving some level
> of guaranteed wealth and happiness at the expense of everyone
> else).  They're wrong, but they are definitions.

Another common definition is related to the first: to be in control of
one's own property. Property being defined as one's self, one's
actions and one's possessions. Or life, liberty and property, as
someone in the 18th century would have put it. Your freedom to swing
your fist ends where my nose begins, because that is also where my
freedom begins.

And I wholly reject, like you, the notion of "positive freedom".

> In this case, the Positive Freedom principle would probably say that
> creators have a right to be compensated (to some unspecified degree) for
> their creative effort, and therefore that they should be guaranteed a
> monopoly on distribution of copies.  Otherwise, they're being "enslaved".  
> Positive Freedom defines slavery not as _forced_ work but as
> _uncompensated_ work.

Another 18th century term for property was "pursuit of happiness". The
"right of property" is a dangerous concept, meaning that someone else
can be compelled to hand over their property to you, whereas the right
to pursue property  means that you can use voluntary means to acquire
property but cannot coerce it from anyone.

> Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> original owner still have it?

Not all violations of someone's property is theft. Consider trespass
for instance. Although you cannot steal information, the possibility
still exists that you can trespass on it. Whether or not trespass
should be considered a crime is another matter entirely. There are some
who firmly believe that land should not be owned and advocate against
trespass laws.

> The "intellectual property" myth was invented for the convenience of a few
> people who thought "enforced monopoly" sounded too blunt.

It's not a myth. Although there are several distinct kinds of IP, they
all have in common the notion that information can be property, so I
will lump them together briefly despite the protestations of RMS. They
meet one of the definitions of property already in that they have been
created through the labor of their authors, or homesteaded in other
words. But another definition of property is that it can be defended
and controlled through voluntary means. In terms of land ownership, it
can be defended and controlled in the absence of trespass laws through
the use of locks, fences and guards. Likewise, information can be
defended in the absence of IP laws through encryption, registration and
time limitations. Since information has been created by the author and
can be defended by the author, it counts as a form of property.

It is the transferal of intellectual property that causes the most
concern. It doesn't matter much to us if the author has ownership of
his or her software, instead we are more concerned with what what we
can do with our own copy of it. (I'm switching over to a specific
kind of IP now) This is where the DMCA and UCITA are nasty things,
whereas "classic" copyright wasn't. Under classic copyright, I have
lots of rights with regards to my copy of information. I can make as
many copies as I want for my own personal use. I can reverse engineer
it. I can lend or transfer my copy to another (though I have to ensure
that only one copy is in use at a time). And yes, there are specific
reforms that I would urge for even classic copyright.

But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software
developers can still privately protect their works. These protections
can range from the mundane such as a contract, to the sophisticate like
time limited encrypted software requiring registration and a dongle.

What I find most interesting though is the relationship between Free
Software (as the FSF defines it) and property. By licensing Free
Software, ownership over it *is* asserted. If no one should have the
right to regulate how I distribute or modify their works, then why
don't I have the right to distribute a binary-only modification of
emacs? Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?

Getting back to freedom as I finish off this rant, tell me how I am
denying you life, liberty or property when you have voluntarily and of
sound mind purchased my proprietary and closed source software, knowing
full well in adv

IP, theft, markets, morals (was Re: Plan 9 license)

[kmself]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:30:14PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
> > Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> > original owner still have it?
> 
> Doesn't work.  "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I
> do not have the potential market that I did before.  That market has been
> stolen from me."

But not the work itself.

The proper legal term, BTW, is misappropriation, WRT unauthorized
publication of a copyrighted work:  The act or an instance of applying
another's property or money dishonestly to one's own use.  Theft is "the
felonious taking and removing of anothers personal property with the
intent of depriving the true owner of it".  

Because of the nonrivalrous nature of use of information, theft is both
an improper technical term and (for reasons put forth by RMS) not
morally appropriate.  It's a misused pejorative.

There's a whole 'nother can of worms opened when you consider your
"market" and just how it's provided you in the first place.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:

> In this case, the Positive Freedom principle would probably say that
> creators have a right to be compensated (to some unspecified degree) for
> their creative effort, and therefore that they should be guaranteed a
> monopoly on distribution of copies.  Otherwise, they're being "enslaved".  

I think that both you and your putative intellectual opponents need
a better schema.  Check out the classical Hohfeld schema at
http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/Syllabi/Hohfeld.htm and come back when
you believe you understand it.

> Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> original owner still have it?

That won't do: it works only for material objects.
In particular, IP rights are the rights to exploit something commercially.

> The "intellectual property" myth was invented for the convenience of a few
> people who thought "enforced monopoly" sounded too blunt.

IP rights are monopolistic, but so are ordinary property rights: if
I own land, I have the exclusive right to make what use of it I like
(subject to a few restrictions).  If you build a shack on the corner
of my farm, you have not "stolen my land", but my property rights
are invaded nonetheless.

> The purpose of property rights is to settle disputes among parties who
> want to use an object in different and mutually exclusive ways.  For
> intellectual constructs there is no mutual exclusion.  If you write a
> network driver, and I make a copy and modify it to handle a different
> protocol, you don't have to use my version.  You're still entirely free to
> do what you want with the driver as you wrote it.

Except sell it (and its variants) where and how I choose.

> I'm not familiar with EU copyright law, but can't the same thing be
> accomplished with contracts?  "I agree to allow Company X, and no one
> else, to distribute copies of my software; in return, Company X will pay
> me .  This agreement remains in force until the copyright
> expires."

Yes, that works fine.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
--Eric Raymond

Re: Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:

> freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want.
> I do not know of any other definition.

Freedom is freedom to act, or not to act, in a certain way.  What
action, or inaction, of the creator is prevented when I make
unauthorized copies of his works?

> > You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course.
> > 
> Sure, do you agree or not, would be more interesting to me.

I don't.  It is wrong, but it is not *as* wrong.  It is wrong to
drive at 90 km/hr in a 50 km/hr road, but to claim that this is
as wrong as murder strikes me as absurd.

> I was not talking about that, strange that you draw this from my 
> simple example ;-)

You said "If you invent ... [some]one will build a ship ... if *he*
does not like you, you will never ride in it "   This suggests that
there is only one ship-builder.  If there are many, *someone* will
be willing to take your money.

> Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. 

What is "CMM"?  What is "CMM level 1"?

> The same is true for open source software and free software.
> In terms of effort put into the software and return of investment
> most OS and FS software performs very bad. Much more bad then
> most a standard priprietary software house.

That's why so matter of the latter fail to survive, no doubt.

> Most of the business models mentioned there would not work if
> OS or FS would not allready exist.
> They only can work because millions of developer monthes are 
> allready DONE. Most of them unpayd.

Very true.  Most businesses depend to one degree or another on
something already available in the environment.  Timber companies
wouldn't be able to get started if there hadn't been forests that
grew by themselves.

> So the real winners are the compayies which say: "Well, I'm
> smart, I know linux. Lets go and do some consulting."
> (substitute linux with your favorite OS/FS work) And all this
> companies do not pay anything back to anybody. Neither
> the public nor the creator. (Besides paying sales tax)

If we look at pieces of software smaller than a whole operating
system, it often turns out to be true that the person who knows
them best, and can make the most money consulting, *is* the creator.

But in fact companies that make a living consulting on open source
often do quite a bit of payback to the public, in the form of
explicit or implicit support for software creators.

> Of course the real winners are companies which now can sell
> hardware for linux boxes. Those have a benfit in OS development.
> (again substitute 'linux box' for any OS/FS work which can be
> a base for a product on top of it) 

Yes, but the advantage applies equally to all of them.  Hardware
companies benefit when software is a commodity item, and so do
consumers.

> And it even goes farer, now we are close to a change which 
> makes contracts which want the creator to surrender his rights
> void.

Which rights, exactly?  The *droit d'auteur*, or the *droit d'exploitation*?

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
--Eric Raymond

Re: Plan 9 license

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
> Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
> original owner still have it?

Doesn't work.  "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I
do not have the potential market that I did before.  That market has been
stolen from me."

Re: Plan 9 license

[Mark Wells]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:

> > > To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
> > > of the creator.
> > 
> > This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom".  
> freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want.
> I do not know of any other definition.

There _are_ other definitions, such as those (common in some political
circles) that distinguish between "Negative Freedom" (the kind you
describe) and "Positive Freedom" (a nebulous concept involving some level
of guaranteed wealth and happiness at the expense of everyone
else).  They're wrong, but they are definitions.

In this case, the Positive Freedom principle would probably say that
creators have a right to be compensated (to some unspecified degree) for
their creative effort, and therefore that they should be guaranteed a
monopoly on distribution of copies.  Otherwise, they're being "enslaved".  
Positive Freedom defines slavery not as _forced_ work but as
_uncompensated_ work.

Again, they're wrong.  I'm not endorsing this definition; I'm just saying
that it is a definition we can expect to run into among academics and
other professional ignorers of reality, and we should be prepared to
answer it.

> > Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by
> > breaching the license.
> > 
> 
> I'm not talking about "stealing" free software.
> I'm talking about stealing any intellectual property from
> an inventor/autor/creator against his will AND without
> refunding.

Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
original owner still have it?

The "intellectual property" myth was invented for the convenience of a few
people who thought "enforced monopoly" sounded too blunt.

The purpose of property rights is to settle disputes among parties who
want to use an object in different and mutually exclusive ways.  For
intellectual constructs there is no mutual exclusion.  If you write a
network driver, and I make a copy and modify it to handle a different
protocol, you don't have to use my version.  You're still entirely free to
do what you want with the driver as you wrote it.

As obvious as this seems, some people refuse to believe it because they
have a vested interest in perpetuating the false analogy to property.  
Considering what these emperors have spent on their new clothes, they'd
rather die of hypothermia than admit that they're naked.

> > to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically
> > including the EU.
> 
> In the EU it is impossible to transfer a copyright.

I'm not familiar with EU copyright law, but can't the same thing be
accomplished with contracts?  "I agree to allow Company X, and no one
else, to distribute copies of my software; in return, Company X will pay
me .  This agreement remains in force until the copyright
expires."

US, EU, piracy, freedom, control (was Re: Plan 9 license)

[kmself]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding?
> So I simply delete and skip that part :-)
> 
> 
> > 
> > Nonsense.  The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976
> > to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically
> > including the EU.
> > 
> 
> In the EU it is not possible to transfer a copyright.

This is only partially correct, AFAIK.  Commercial rights may be
transferred.  Moral rights cannot.  For commercial purposes, EU and US
law are highly conformant.  The concept of moral rights is somewhat
peculiar to the EU, and (IIRC) French tradition in particular -- "Droit
d'author".

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:

> In the EU it is not possible to transfer a copyright.

A distinction without a difference; though the copyright itself
may not be transferrable freely, the *droit d'exploitation* is.
Anything else would be intolerably restrictive of modern commerical
publishing, which needs the power of transferring such.

Nor are copyrights 100% transferrable in the U.S. either: the
author and his heirs have an absolute, unwaivable, inalienable
right to recapture the copyright between 35 and 40 years after
transferring it.  This is intended to benefit authors who
sold at a low price their works which later became much more valuable.


-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
--Eric Raymond

Re: Plan 9 license

[Angelo Schneider]

Well, 
I'm not a native english speaker,
first fault.
I learned british english in scholl,
second fault.


> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> 
> > To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
> > of the creator.
> 
> This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom".  
freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want.
I do not know of any other definition.

[...]

> 
> > It is moral wrong to make unauthorized copies as it it s moral wrong
> > to denie the physical freedom of one.
> 
> You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course.
> 
Sure, do you agree or not, would be more interesting to me.

> > Free Software is a nice idea, but not the solution. It simply
> > floddes the market with so much software that stealing is no longer
> > a reasonable action of one who likes to use the software.
> 
> Solution to what?  

To the problems RMS wans to address with the FSF.

> Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by
> breaching the license.
> 

I'm not talking about "stealing" free software.
I'm talking about stealing any intellectual property from
an inventor/autor/creator against his will AND without
refunding.

This is regardless wether I breach the FSF license or if
I copy a CD from a friend.


> > If you invent the one and only intergalactic starship drive, you
> > will make your knowledge free.
> >
> > One will build that ship with that drive.
> 
> Why only "one"?  If you make the information publicly and freely

In britisch english one means "some one", "some body" and does not
mean 1 person but any person.

> available, *many* can build ships with that drive.  This is called
> "competition" and is generally thought to be a Good Thing for the
> public, if not for would-be monopolists.
> 

I was not talking about that, strange that you draw this from my 
simple example ;-)

> > You should better think about a world in which the inventor/creator
> > or how ever you call him gets a fair revenue, instead about a world
> > in which a "customer" gets a free(in beer) access to inventions.
> 
> So we do.  See http://www.opensource.org/for-suits.html .
>

Well, 50% of the arguments on that paper are wrong or very narrow 
minded.

Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. 
The same is true for open source software and free software.
In terms of effort put into the software and return of investment
most OS and FS software performs very bad. Much more bad then
most a standard priprietary software house.
(there are exceptions: namely Apache and ANTLR)

Most of the business models mentioned there would not work if
OS or FS would not allready exist.

They only can work because millions of developer monthes are 
allready DONE. Most of them unpayd.

So the real winners are the compayies which say: "Well, I'm
smart, I know linux. Lets go and do some consulting."
(substitute linux with your favorite OS/FS work) And all this
companies do not pay anything back to anybody. Neither
the public nor the creator. (Besides paying sales tax)

Of course the real winners are companies which now can sell
hardware for linux boxes. Those have a benfit in OS development.
(again substitute 'linux box' for any OS/FS work which can be
a base for a product on top of it) 

> > The point with most free software promotors is that they only see
> > the US and their strange copyright law and patent law.
> > The rest of the world is very different.
> 
> Nonsense.  The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976

Well,
I commented on that but I do again.

> to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically
> including the EU.

In the EU it is impossible to transfer a copyright.

QED.

And it even goes farer, now we are close to a change which 
makes contracts which want the creator to surrender his rights
void.


> 
> --
> John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
> --Eric Raymond


Regards,
   Angelo

P.S. if one would read what I write it would be more fun to discuss ...

Please support a software patent free EU, visit 
 http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html

--
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24   Patterns/FrameWorks  Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe   C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467

Re: Plan 9 license

[Angelo Schneider]

Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding?
So I simply delete and skip that part :-)


> 
> Nonsense.  The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976
> to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically
> including the EU.
> 

In the EU it is not possible to transfer a copyright.

QED.

Regards,
   Angelo

Please support a software patent free EU, visit 
 http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html

--
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24   Patterns/FrameWorks  Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe   C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467

Re: Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:

> To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
> of the creator.

This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom".  If you are
going to use terms in nonstandard ways, you need to explain them,
not just appeal to them as Yang Worship Words (Star Trek reference).

> It is moral wrong to make unauthorized copies as it it s moral wrong
> to denie the physical freedom of one.

You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course.

> Free Software is a nice idea, but not the solution. It simply 
> floddes the market with so much software that stealing is no longer
> a reasonable action of one who likes to use the software.

Solution to what?  Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by
breaching the license.

> If you invent the one and only intergalactic starship drive, you
> will make your knowledge free. 
> 
> One will build that ship with that drive.

Why only "one"?  If you make the information publicly and freely
available, *many* can build ships with that drive.  This is called
"competition" and is generally thought to be a Good Thing for the
public, if not for would-be monopolists.

> You should better think about a world in which the inventor/creator
> or how ever you call him gets a fair revenue, instead about a world
> in which a "customer" gets a free(in beer) access to inventions.

So we do.  See http://www.opensource.org/for-suits.html .

> The point with most free software promotors is that they only see
> the US and their strange copyright law and patent law. 
> The rest of the world is very different.

Nonsense.  The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976
to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically
including the EU.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
--Eric Raymond

Re: Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:

> Angelo Schneider wrote:
> 
> > Making "non authorized copies" is slavery!
> 
> Wow!  85 lines of question-begging.  I believe that's a new record.
> Don, what prize do we have for today's contestant?

Well, we can offer him lots of software for download at the special
price, for him only, of 0.00 zlotniks

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
--Eric Raymond

Re: Plan 9 license

[Rick Moen]

Angelo Schneider wrote:

> Making "non authorized copies" is slavery!

Wow!  85 lines of question-begging.  I believe that's a new record.
Don, what prize do we have for today's contestant?

-- 
Cheers,   "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm 
Rick Moen for a day.  Set a man on fire, and he will be warm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   for the rest of his life."   -- John A. Hrastar

Re: Plan 9 license

[Angelo Schneider]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>
> Which is way I also dislike the terms "slavery", "subjugation" and
> "domination" in reference to closed source software. These terms also
> have polemical associations with evil and violence. If one metaphor is
> wrong, then so is the other.
> 

RMS:
> I use the terms "subjugation" and "domination" to describe non-free
> software.  These are not metaphors; they are descriptions which fit
> non-free software.  I also use metaphors such as "chains".  But I do
> not describe non-free software as "slavery", since that term seems
> like an exaggeration.  The subjugation which non-free software
> inflicts does not cover all of life, as slavery does, just one aspect
> of life.
> 

Making "non authorized copies" is slavery! You are always talking about
the freedom of the "user" of some intellectual property.
I was talking about the creator(not necessaryly the owner) of the
intellectual property.

To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
of the creator.

It is moral wrong to make unauthorized copies as it it s moral wrong
to denie the physical freedom of one.

This is totaly unrelated to free versus non-free verus open versus 
closed software.

The point is that US copyright law is a joke, but (some)people in the 
free software movement conclude false that proprietary software is
evil.

Instead of trying to change the law we have now endless discussions
about the distinction of open versus free software.

And also endless discussions about terms and their moral implications.

YES: for me making a unauthorized copy is:
a) piracy!
b) slavery!
c) theft!

And I mean that exactly as I say it. It is exacly as evil as it is
to hold one in prison or to let children work or selling narcotics
or stealing cars. It may not be physical violence but it is
intellectual violence!

Free Software is a nice idea, but not the solution. It simply 
floddes the market with so much software that stealing is no longer
a reasonable action of one who likes to use the software.

I have a picture for you what is wrong about the free software 
versus intellectual propertie discussion:

If you invent the one and only intergalactic starship drive, you
will make your knowledge free. 

One will build that ship with that drive.

But if he does not like you, you will never be on board! Because
the ticket is so expensive that you can not affort it.

You should better think about a world in which the inventor/creator
or how ever you call him gets a fair revenue, instead about a world
in which a "customer" gets a free(in beer) access to inventions.

The point with most free software promotors is that they only see
the US and their strange copyright law and patent law. 
The rest of the world is very different.

Regards,
  Angelo


Please support a software patent free EU, visit 
 http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html

--
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24   Patterns/FrameWorks  Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe   C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467