| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: aland_-at-_striker.ottawa.on.ca (Alan DeKok)
Date: 3 Feb 1999 15:37:41 -0500
Russell spoke voluminously: > What Copyright/patents try to suggest is the reverse: That all ideas, > like 'physical matter', is unique and can only exist in one place at one > time. I have no idea where you get that interpretation from. The INTENT of Copyright/patents is to compensate authors for their work, so they don't starve. (There's that evil money thing again...) > This is obviously false: Two people can come up with the same idea > without any knowledge of the other person. I'll agree with that, though I don't see it's relation to your first sentence. > Whether or not ideas are 'obvious' or not is not an issue, it's whether > or not they are unique. Clearly ideas are not, while physical objects > are. Maybe I got confused when Krishna mentioned 'obvious' ideas. I had thought it was part of the discussion. Maybe I got confused when I heard you say "You don't HAVE to share ideas". Non-shared ideas are unique. It's impossible for them to be otherwise. > Analogies cannot be made to try to fit the two to be the same (As > both Alan and Paul have tried to do). And your reasons for stating this are...? Mostly religious, as there's little evidence. > Paul tried to compare the sharing of ideas to the sharing of ones > physical home. Privacy issues aside, I am not 'hurt' by someone using an > idea of mine, but I can be hurt by someone (accidentally or otherwise) > breaking/taking irreplaceable items in my home. You're hurt when someone uses an idea of yours without attribution or compensation. This is mind-bogglingly obvious: look at the bitching and moaning that people do when they DON'T get credit for their work (free software or otherwise). In addition, people are hurt when they aren't compensated for their work. Ideas come from work. I don't think it's a startling conclusion. > It goes all back to money again: There are those who believe that money > can replace everything, and there are those who recognize that there are > many things money cannot replace. And which one are you trying to shoe-horn me into? Can't you see you're denying me freedom by forcing my beliefs into your *interpretation* of my beliefs? > I believe that projects that cannot be funded using other non-IP methods > should be projects that do not get done. Then don't support them: live naked in the woods, as all commercial/IP methods are evil, and you shouldn't buy commercial products. >> My partial solution: peer review of patents, not review by >> incompetent patent examiners. This method has worked for scientific >> papers and theories for hundreds of years. > > And the lack of patents worked for thousands of years before that. Because there were few (if any) new ideas, most people were starving filthy ignorant peasants, and most new ideas got either locked up, or got you burned at the stake. I'd like to hope we can rise above that. > > Copyright and patent are therefore infringements of basic human rights. > >> Wow, that's a pretty sweeping statement. I'd like to believe that >> history shows otherwise (e.g. the REASONS for inventing the concepts >> of copyright and patents) > > You are free to believe that I guess, and your "history shows otherwise" > is an equally sweaping (and unprovable) statement. Really? You mean I can't go to history books and read peoples reasons for implementing copyright/patent protection? Funny, I thought I could... >> My problem is that every time I say "the GPL is not perfect", I get >> a bleating of: > > Actually what you said was "Is this guy on crack?" but we don't have to > go there again. While you were refering to RMS, you were obviously going > to insult others who have similar or the same views. This is the same damned thing I've repeated until my lips are bleeding: I believe the GPL is GOOD. My ORIGINAL complaint was the RMS was dividing people, and claiming it was helping them. > > The GPL is Good! > > The GPL is Great! > > If we all used it > > Life would be neat! > > You get this as you write about the GPL from a non- Free Software > viewpoint, trying to refer to yourself as a Free Software person. (sigh). Russell, you're completely ignoring much of what I'm saying. You're attacking me because my views on the GPL don't coincide EXACTLY with yours... and we're back to the pro-GPL bleating, with little or no new substance. > You believe that information should be able to be owned/restricted > for profit, and thus your postings are going to seem inconsistent to > a Free Software thinking person. e.g. I don't have the correct double-plus-good-think. I'm wrong when I think I notice loop-holes or logical inconsistencies in your arguments. I'm not stupid, Russell. You're trying to win this argument by the Jesuit method: Re-defining all of the terms under discussion so that they support your position, and ONLY your position. I refuse to go along with such a charade. > And yes, I realize that my postings are going to seem inconsistent from > the viewpoint of a non-Free Software thinking person. So because I don't agree with your position, I can't understand it? Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. > > This doesn't help me. The GPL is NOT perfect, and does NOT apply to > > ALL situations. > There are realistically only TWO long-term situations: You either > believe ideas can/should be able to be owned, or you don't. Ideas ARE owned. That's a fact. You own ideas you haven't shared with me, and no amount of pro-GPL / free software philosphy will change that fact. > All the different licenses are tools to try to 'migrate' people from > these opposing viewpoints to each others camps, or to appeal to people who > haven't quite made up their mind yet. These licenses should be understood > in that context. Ah, then the FACT is that RMS's ideas on GPL vs. LGPL will SLOW DOWN the migration from the proprietary to the free camp. THIS IS THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE. Despite your attempts to oppress me by misunderstanding my opinions, I WANT information to be free. If YOU want information to be free, you will help it become free. RMS is not doing so with this article, and neither are you by supporting his position. > > 'free software advocate', and not a 'GPL bigot'. > > You are NOT a Free Software advocate, you are an Open-Source advocate. > If you believe that information can be owned, then you aren't really a > Free Software advocate. Who died and appointed you pope? Geez, from my seat, this sounds bigoted as all hell. > BTW: Your earlier use of "Corel and Wine" as an example of a > proprietary-thinking company helping Free Software ended up proving my > point more than it did yours. Wine is another one of those "Halfway > house" tools that only exists to run non-Free software on a Free platform. > Free Software doesn't need such "binary-level" emulators. (sigh again) In a big happy world we'd all be big happy friends with our happy little houses and happy little trees and happy little bees. This is not that world. In this world, people can be weaned away from commercial software by using free software. Incredibly enough, we can convince companies to help with this process! e.g. Corel & Wine. But wait! RMS thinks this process is a Bad Thing! Yet he WANTS people to use free software. How else will people use free software, if they're not weaned away from commercial products? Am I evil for saying this is a Good Thing? You seem to be believe so. Am I stupid for pointing out the conflict between RMS's stated goals and actions? Again, you seem to think so. I find this religious bias to be frustrating, and it certainly doesn't help the free and open exchange of ideas. (Whoops, there's that nasty conflict again. Let's get rid of it by repeating the GPL Mantra) The GPL is Good! The GPL is Great! If we all used it Life would be neat! Amen, and praise RMS. 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).
|