Re: Plan 9 license
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
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
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
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
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
US, EU, piracy, freedom, control (was Re: Plan 9 license)
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
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 amount. This agreement remains in force until the copyright expires."
Re: Plan 9 license
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
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
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 amount. 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
IP, theft, markets, morals (was Re: Plan 9 license)
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
