RE: The Feudal Lord Analogy
> I appeal to everyone in this discussion to resist and reject the use > of the propaganda term "intellectual property" to label the topic now ??? - Nobody used it this way. > under discussion. It is more clear, and less biased, to describe the > topic as "copyright and patents". The topic is more specific: some analysis of the licensing protection scheme and its compatibility with the actual definition of "software work", under Berna (and National Copyright Laws). > A discussion that uses the term "intellectual property" is likely to > embody that bias as a premise. I don't have time to study the long It appears clearly you did not follow the thread. [I.R.Maturana -- Trad En>[ES<>FR] - http://www.in3activa.org ] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Feudal Lord Analogy
> I appeal to everyone in this discussion to resist and reject the use > of the propaganda term "intellectual property" to label the topic now ??? - Nobody used it this way. I was responding to this text, written by someone in this discussion (I don't know who, but it isn't crucial). > While there are differences between copyrights and patents, > the purpose of > both is protection of your IP. Describing software as "intellectual property" is confusion of the sort I described, in the worst possible degree. It appears clearly you did not follow the thread. That is correct, I am not following the thread, just skimming the messages for basic points I ought to respond to. I don't have time to study those long messages. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: The Feudal Lord Analogy
> My Lord, you should re-read any Internet FAQ about list usage, > in particular, about people sending void, non-useful messages. > > The propaganda term "intellectual property" does a lot of harm, and > explaining this problem is useful, in my opinion. Your opinion may be > different. Let us go ahead with the thread, then ! ;)) The thread was not really centered on opinions but on solutions. I agree when you say that IP terms applied to OS and !OS software generate more issues than solutions. I disagree probably with you if I add that these issues exist in the whole software licensing scheme. In fact, the main issue pertains probably to the definition of "software works" under IP-Laws. I resume my analysis and invite members to search solutions together. === Since the beginning, software works were placed under the protection of Copyright Laws. The copyright is a protection granted by States to authors, but the rule is that the same Laws also protect the freedom of citizens on behalf the "public interest". IP-Laws equally protect author's rights, and licensees' rights to do self-translation, self-disassembly, self-copy, and so on. Based on the same rationale, IP-Laws also assert the equality of rights of aythors and derivators on their respective published versions, as soon as authors allows these derivations. Authors and Companies can try to forbid and threaten people, they can use legal phrasing or even poetic style (maybe this would be effective :) -- all these restriction clauses are void as long as the self-use of the work does not offend they commercial rights. This is fair use. In short: ideas and algorithms are not copyrightable. When companies understood this issue in 90th, they attempted to make some managing in IP-Laws and practically destroyed the protection of individuals authors of software. We assist now to the general attempt of software companies, seconded by Media companies, to place "software works" under the more secured model of Industrial Patents. Personally, I do not believe they will succeed. But they will probably destroy a little more the actual balance between public interest and authors' rights. All this stuff will probably end with some Software-IP-Exception Laws with no benefit at all for any individual developers. === Here is my three step analysis (and an abstract of the PLT/LPT genesis) First, the true difference between both OS and !OS models is that OS author's purposes connects directly with the IP-Laws premise of "public interest". In my opinion, some OS licenses have developed this strong, very strong idea that the classic "public domain" under Laws can be efficiently completed by some "publicly owned domain". The idea is that an author can define the boundaries of a specific Public Domain based on his/her individual legitimacy. Author's legitimacy acts like "derived class" of the People legitimacy. Really, I believe this a new, very strong idea, and a very good interpretation of IP-Laws. Chapeau :-) But there is a mistake somewhere in the actual formulation of this idea. An author has no need to "grant freedom" to anyone, because this freedom is _already_ granted by Laws, and these Laws are the same from which the Author's right are derived. If we follow the correct rationale, an author cannot "grant rights" to licensees. This is because the rights owned by authors are originated from Laws, which in turn are edicted by the licensees ! In C, derivate classes cannot grant permissions to base classes, instead member access is bounded by base classes. Second, as far as the Feudal Lord Analogy is true, the license protection scheme is the same for OS and non-OS software. Thus, we are running under the paradox that the Laws which apply today on non-OS software, will apply tomorrow on OS software as well. This is no good. This paradox appears clearly in licenses as manifest inconsistencies: denial of all translation derivation rights (this way, despite their public terms, some OS licenses deny _all_ derivation rights); denial of legal validity for the translated license itself; denial of legal validity for any laws other than the country law, which contradicts the international basis of IP Treaties. Etc. I don't know how these licenses can still invoke IP-laws protection. But I understand that confidence is mutual, and nobody protest, yet. The good new, anyway, is that the same inconsistencies apply for non-OS license classes. As RMS often wrote, it is abnormal that an IP-protected author forbid his licensees to know the underlying ideas or algorithms. Yes IP-Laws assert clearly that ideas and thus algorithms are free under IP-Laws. Yes the cost argument does not allow authors to compromise public interest in knowledge and advancement. But I shall add immediately that the way to solve this anomaly was (in the early 90th) to sue non-OS authors in a tribunal,
Re: The Feudal Lord Analogy
Since the beginning, software works were placed under the protection of Copyright Laws. If we replace the propaganda term "protection" with a neutral term such as "coverage", this is a true and useful statement--because you said "copyright". If you replace "copyright" with "intellectual property", that would make it uselessly vague. It is a mistake to try to think about "intellectual property", because at that level of generalization one loses all the important details that give copyrights, patents, and trademarks their effects. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: The Feudal Lord Analogy
Even if one could successfully obtain coverage for a software program of all of the "intellectual property" laws existing or recognized in the U.S., the scope of those protections would not be coextensive. Whether the point is pertinent I am unsure, but for whatever it is worth, I think Stallman's point is well-taken. "Intellectual property" is a loaded term that is increasingly connoting a strange sense of property and an oddly wide-ranging scope of interests. To thwart this trend, as Stallman points out, we should be more precise in our use of terms...[but I would add] to the extent that it makes sense. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available through the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=240132 > -Original Message- > From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Feudal Lord Analogy > > > Since the beginning, software works were placed under the > protection > of Copyright Laws. > > If we replace the propaganda term "protection" with a neutral > term such as "coverage", this is a true and useful > statement--because you said "copyright". If you replace > "copyright" with "intellectual property", that would make it > uselessly vague. > > It is a mistake to try to think about "intellectual > property", because at that level of generalization one loses > all the important details that give copyrights, patents, and > trademarks their effects. > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: The Feudal Lord Analogy
Whether the point is pertinent I am unsure, but for whatever it is worth, I >think Stallman's point is well-taken. "Intellectual property" is a >loaded term that is increasingly connoting a strange sense of property >and an oddly wide-ranging scope of interests. To thwart this trend, as >Stallman points out, we should be more precise in our use of >terms...[but I would add] to the extent that it makes sense. I agree with RMS and you about using "Copyright" in English. English is my third language. European Laws use I.P. where US uses "Copyright". The US extent of the expression "I.P." is larger than in Europe. To be short, we focuse on works protected by the (c) symbol, and on Laws which cover its usage. I agree to replace occurences of "IP" by the word "Copyright" in my former messages. I understand that the extent of the "IP" term in US Laws allows this term to be widely used by propaganda. But I do not believe that propaganda is the true problem. Denouncing propaganda is important, but not a solution. We also need to understand the true questions, and find solutions. IRM -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: The Feudal Lord Analogy (Response to Mr Stallman)
> I was responding to this text, written by someone in this discussion > (I don't know who, but it isn't crucial). Uh ! Mr Stallman, I wonder if you are saying either you have nothing to say or that you prefer to talk with some spirits. You can name me, I have a name. > Describing software as "intellectual property" is confusion > of the sort I described, in the worst possible degree. Be aware that there are biases that have nothing to do with arguments. Saying that you do not like some flavor in the atmosphere does not imply you must stop to breathe. And your amazing appeal to the assistance to stop breathing, is surely not the better way to keep them alive. > That is correct, I am not following the thread, just skimming the > messages for basic points I ought to respond to. I don't have time > to study those long messages. My Lord, you should re-read any Internet FAQ about list usage, in particular, about people sending void, non-useful messages. :) Sincerely, I should prefer we do not continue this thread, because this is like opening a hole under your feet. After your second message, I guess you have perfectly read the thread and presume that your difficulties are not related to your lack of time. I have no more time than you, but my priorities are evidently not the same than yours. By your response, I am sincerely sorry to see you are falling twice in this stupid trick, because I know who you are. This was not my wish to provoke nor assist to this spectacle. I you need further assistance for argumentation (not for lateral biases, please) write me privately: I shall be happy to assist you. === Related to some thread about OSD issues, I tried to give some point based on my researches, and fund this thread particularly interesting. I am here because I sent an approval request for a Public License of Translation: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4895:200202:pbaglcgkicdhjoaijhdc This was a formal, neutral request, but after the present happening, i feel myself curious to know how my request will be considered by OSI members. After that, I will follow my own route, as everyone should do. Best regards, cordialement. (Please, Mr Stallman, avoid a third time show, or simply come back to the thread, or I will send you a link about the story of some Greece philosopher who fall into a well ! :-D) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: The Feudal Lord Analogy (Response to Mr Stallman)
Ok. I present general public excuses for my prompt response, included to Mr Stallman. This kind of happening is somehow superfluous, and helps nobody to understand the true questions. I will retain myself from any message till next Sunday at least. Thanks for all, I am sorry because the noise (and the poor demonstration of my English abilities) [I.R.Maturana -- Trad En>[ES<>FR] - http://www.in3activa.org ] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Feudal Lord Analogy (Response to Mr Stallman)
My Lord, you should re-read any Internet FAQ about list usage, in particular, about people sending void, non-useful messages. The propaganda term "intellectual property" does a lot of harm, and explaining this problem is useful, in my opinion. Your opinion may be different. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Feudal Lord Analogy (RE: Response to Mr. Maturana)
I appeal to everyone in this discussion to resist and reject the use of the propaganda term "intellectual property" to label the topic now under discussion. It is more clear, and less biased, to describe the topic as "copyright and patents". The term "intellectual property" encourages simplistic overgeneralization: lumping together copyrights, patents, and various other things too. It also encourages a specific idea of what is important about them--that they are something that could be bought or sold--with all the details, the ways they restrict other people's activities, treated as secondary. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation. A discussion that uses the term "intellectual property" is likely to embody that bias as a premise. I don't have time to study the long messages in this thread, but simply to ask whether copyright is "effective" enough suggests that that bias is present. The useful response in such a situation is to bring the bias out in the open and then criticize it. To respond to the details of the arguments erected on that foundation is a side track. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
