Who we are   Organizations   Get Involved!   Helpdesk   Weblog   About FLORA   Server project   F.A.Q.

Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada

Free/Libre Software and Community Networking FORUM

Re: Has RMS gone off the deep end?

From: aland_-at-_striker.ottawa.on.ca (Alan DeKok)
Date: 3 Feb 1999 10:43:55 -0500

 Russell sez:
>   Either you believe information can/should be owned, or you do not. The
> ideas of the other philosophy are just not going to make sense.

 [ re-arranged ]

> I ... do consider Copyright/Patents to be the worst form of
> anti-Social welfare (Getting something for nothing, stealing from
> the commons) that exists in our society today.

  How can you steal something which is free?

  Hmm.. maybe you mean that by NOT sharing their information, they're
stealing what we could otherwise have.  But you've already said that
sharing or not sharing is THEIR choice.

  I don't think you can have it both ways.

> consumers do not have the freedom to choose the best value-add producer,
> just pay the arbitrary license fees to those who stole from the public
> realm by patenting/copyrighting some intellectual works.

  So if I invent something and refuse to share it, it's stealing.  Right...

>  The real costs of value-add to information can be paid for in many
> different ways that do not involve restricting access to information.

  Are you *sure*?  I mean, *really* sure?  I'm not, which is where my
skepticism about 'GPL == utopia' comes in.

>   If you write a piece of software and give it to your friends, you are
> perfectly fine to do whatever you want with it including keeping it
> secret.

  But if Shakespeare is GPL'd, and I quote it over the phone to a
friend, then that ENTIRE conversation becomes GPL'd: free, and open to
public scrutiny.

  In this case, GPL == tyranny and lack of privacy.

  Sure, I can choose not to quote Shakespeare.  But this then divides
the world into the "evil" non-Shakespeare quoting people, and the
"good" people who can quote it freely.

  I'm not entirely comfortable with such a world.

>  Patents/Copyright are used to restrict information AFTER you have
> decided to not keep something secret. 

  No.  That's a *resounding* NO.

  Copyrights were invented for a reason:  With the advent of printing
presses, there was a free flow of information which had never been
seen before.  This free flow INCLUDED people taking others work, and
selling as their own with no attribution or royalties.  As a result,
the original authors starved, as they were not paid for their YEARS of
effort.  (This is what you seem to be advocating.)

  Patents were invented to FORCE companies to disclose knowledge that
was previously closely held trade secrets.  e.g. the guilds in the
middle ages, with their secrets, their initiations, and their blocking
of the free flow of information.

  Like it or not, the ONLY reason that the GPL is useful is because of
existing copyright law.  Without this protection, the terms of the GPL
could be ignored at will.

>   As to getting off one's ass: I think getting paid for something you did
> in the past (Copyright) rather than getting paid for something you do in
> the present and will do in the future (CopyLeft) is very much a matter of
> who is lazy and who is not.

  Your belief presumes that you can make back ALL of your costs with
one sale of your product.  This simply isn't true.

  The company I work for spends YEARS developing products, and their
sales are pro-rated payment for the previous development effort.  If
the company had to give all of it's product away with the first sale,
the buyer would pay HUNDREDS of times the cost, and it would soon be
out of business.


  The issue here is ownership of information.  I own what I create,
and creating that information cost me a lot of time and effort.  Sure,
it may cost nothing to COPY that information, but it STILL cost
something to create.  Unless I'm reimbursed for those costs, I starve.

  My original complaint was that RMS is building walls between people,
and claiming he's being helpful.  I fail to see how this is different
from the patents and copyrights you disagree with.  In the absence of
anyone refuting these complaints, I can only assume you believe them
to be true, and believe that they're a Good Thing.

  Alan DeKok.

Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign (USA) (Canada)	FLORA Community Web (FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).