Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 04:07:31 +0000 From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> To: "G. Adam Stanislav" <redprince@redprince.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? Message-ID: <20000514040731.B17455@happy.checkpoint.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000513192827.00895a10@mail85.pair.com>; from redprince@redprince.net on Sat, May 13, 2000 at 07:28:27PM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10005130735370.20100-100000@hydrant.intranova.net> <391D4DAD.FD80980A@picusnet.com> <003b01bfbcdc$6059fb40$a164aad0@kickme> <391D71FE.1570F551@asme.org> <20000513205610.A22103@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <3.0.6.32.20000513143506.00895650@mail85.pair.com> <20000514010614.A16058@happy.checkpoint.com> <3.0.6.32.20000513180213.00894400@mail85.pair.com> <20000514023000.A16663@happy.checkpoint.com> <3.0.6.32.20000513192827.00895a10@mail85.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 07:28:27PM -0500, G. Adam Stanislav wrote: > At 02:30 14-05-2000 +0000, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > >Chess games cannot be copyrighted. > > A chess player does not create anything. You are sadly mistaken. It's clearly no use to debate this further, however, since you seem to be firmly set in your prejudices. Next, consider crossword puzzles. They can't be copyrighted. They are a result of hard work. > A programmer creates a product. He builds a machine. The fact the machine > is "soft" and easy to duplicate is irrelevant. The program is a program not > because it starts as words in a programming language. The program only > matters because after it is compiled, it is loaded into computer memory and > rewires the circuitry of the computer. It turns a general-purpose machine > into a different machine that now does something it could not do before (I > mean in actualitate, not in potentia). So what? It's still an intellectual, not a physical, object. *It can be copied at will*. That is its feature, not its fault. If every software was a physical machine made of steel that had to be dragged around in order to be used elsewhere, your point would've mattered. As it is, you don't have to drag around a machine made of steel in order to enable me to use your software. Moreover, you can continue using your software even as I am using it too! Isn't that great? > >The law doesn't agree with me here if I copy an article written by > >you instead (even though a chess game might be much more imaginative, > >original and important than an article). Why? Because the state wants > >to give you an incentive to write articles, and is less interested > >to give you an incentive to play chess games. > > No, the state is not giving you an incentive to write articles (I'm talking > about the purpose of the protection), it is recognizing that you own what > you created. That is incorrect. If you owned what you created, the copyright would never expire, like it never does on material objects. You're now advised to read up on history of the idea of copyright. Until you do, it's no use debating since you continue to flatly issue falsehoods. > >Unless you dwell on that, and realize that intellectual property > >is *not* automatically a natural, "God-given" right like material > >property is thought by many to be, you will repeat the same basic > >mistake in your reasoning. Stallman's idea is that intellectual objects > >belong to everyone who cares to use them, > > Software is not intellectual objects, it is a machine. Yes, it is. It can be easily copied without hindering the use of the original object. > And for what it's > worth, I don't believe in God. Nor do I necessarily believe that the > concept of property is "natural." But as long as I live in a society where > everyone else gets paid for his work, I'd like to be paid for mine. Stallman does not have as his goal leaving you broke. > > and the world has been > >living according to *his* idea for thousands of years, excluding > >the last two centuries. > > The world had no concept of anything like software until this century > (assuming we both agree we still are in the 20th). Software is an intellectual object, like a novel or a symphony. > >Why should you be able to stop me from using something created by > >you, if that act of using it absolutely does not hinder you in any > >way? > > It does hinder me if I work and do not get paid for while I live in a > society I have to pay everyone else for their work. It is a matter of justice. Capitalism is a system in which everyone has to figure how to get paid for his work. For instance, although I might like the idea of going and teaching literature high-school kids right now, I don't really know how to get myself to be paid for this adequately. Thus, I get my money in a different manner. In capitalism, noone is guaranteed any money just because they do some work (although in welfare states, people are guaranteed some money, period, but not because they do any work they themselves choose). > > The situation > >in which I have to pay you in order to copy that poem or that > >source code is *not* "natural": it is specifically designed to > >benefit *you* as the author. > > It is designed to benefit me for my work. Yes, because the work is felt to benefit society. Now, catching butterflies is not generally felt to benefit society (but only felt so when you're working inside a particular academic setting), so if you go and hunt some butterflies now, and do a pretty hard work of it, you won't be guaranteed any payment. Simple, no? > > Which is fine with me (but not with Stallman), > > Which makes him a Communist. No, it does not. > >though I wish you would at least understand that. > > Having spent tens of thousands of dollars to produce soft machinery that I > was not paid and had to go bankrupt several years ago for thanks to the > attitude like yours and Stallman's, I understand. I wish you and Stallman > did, and everyone else who felt he was not hurting me in any way by taking > away product of years of my toil by using it without pay. Neither I, nor (I would assume) Stallman have taken away any product of yours. Please find some better targets for your anger. > >This is not grounded in fact. If I release a piece of software under > >GPL, you are *not* free to change the license; > > I did not say *I* was. Stallman is. The GPL states it covers this or any > FUTURE version of GPL. Stallman can decide to take full property of any and > all software ever released under GPL with its (the software's) engineers > having nothing to say about it. This is incorrect. As the author of software releasing it under GPL, you are free to require that the only version of GPL that applies is the present version. What GPL says is that if you do not specifically do this, later versions will apply. This is not the same as to state, erroneously, that they will always apply and you have no freedom to change that. Moreover, Stallman can *never* decide to take full property of any software you wrote, *no matter what your license is*, until you legally transfer copyright to Stallman. You are severely deluded about GPL. > >*You* are arguing that a programmer should be free to use whatever > >license he wants, and Stallman does *exactly that*. This is what copyleft > >is all about. > > No, Stallman is NOT doing that. Stallman reserves the right to change GPL > at any time without the programmer having anything to say about it. If > Stallman release his OWN software that way, that is his business. That he > reserves the right to change the license to work of other programmers is > not. Especially if, as is generally the case, most of those programmers do > not realize it. The programmers are free to limit the license as they see fit because, after all, it's *their* software and they set the license. The license does provide an ability (by default) of a user to apply later versions, but if you specifically say in your copyright statement that only the present version is valid, that default will not apply. > >> Everyone gives according to his abilities, everyone takes (in theory) > >> according to his needs. > > > >No, Stallman has never (AFAIK) said that. You're putting words in > >his mouth again. > > I did not say he said those specific words. It is the *idea* that he > espouses and preaches vehemently regardless of its wording. No, he has never preached that idea. > >Now you're being paranoid. This "he's lying and hiding his true > >intentions" argument, by the way, is a basic argument of Marxism. > > He has an agenda and is not fully honest about it. After some years of reading what Stallman wrote in many forums and documents, and including some personal communication, I have never noticed him being dishonest about anything on his agenda. In fact, it is well known that his honest about his intentions and agenda have greatly hurt his reputation in the Open Source community and created tensions between him and people such as esr. -- Anatoly Vorobey, mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000514040731.B17455>