Russell I am not sure I understand your definition of "libertarian". I am not a libertarian. I am close though. I never thought I was "raving" but in retrospect, yes, I probably do rave about the sanctity of property rights. I also think you have a different definition of "capitalist" than I do. I believe capitalists are all for using their capital to create additional profits but historically I don't see them as great defenders of universal property rights. Only their own property rights. cc > On May 13, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Apptech wrote: > >> All this GPL stuff is so much BS. > > That, or course, is an opinion, and its worth is somewhere > within the normal range of values for free opinions*. > Equally varianly valuable material follows. > >> Some a*hole > > Why you choose to use profanity, with or without *'s to > describe somebody who invents a concept is unclear, but it > does indicate what weighting factor to use with your > opinion. [[Above or below unity depending on one's own > opinions ;-) ]]. > >> can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same >> legal weight as copyright. > > Nobody asked them to, Sir, she said. > Copyleft and GPL and all the other schemes ae in fact > subsets of copyright. They do not attempt to convey as of > right to the owners of a 'work' any right that that do not > have under copyright law. They may 'suggest' that the owner > of a work request other rights in exchange for permission to > use their copyrighted work. All complaints about such > schemes are complaints about the powers vested by copyright > law. This does not make the complaints invalid - but it > should be noted what is being complained about. To each > question of the type 'why should I ..."/ "what right have > they to ..." etc the answer in all cases is "Copyright law > bestows that right on them". > > Copyright deals with ownership. To the extent that copyright > gets the issues of owenership "right", complaints about > GPL/copyleft etc are expressions of a desire to steal > another's property. Tear down copyright law (UN and all) and > you destry all such schemes. Go to. > >> Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke >> screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even >> less water. > > In my mind I'm going to Carolina ... . > What's in an indiovidual's mind carries far less weight than > copyright law, as you have noted. And it's copyright law > that you are railing against. > > >> Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or >> services and then >> apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the >> source code and then >> saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you >> can" is a BIG >> no no. > > Nobody argued otherwise. > But, as you argue, copyright law covers "providing all the > source code" until such time as the owner applies some other > provision. So it's not obvious how you feel the above > applies. > >> Secondly, if anyone were mad enough > > Sticks and stones ;-) > >> to try to enforce GPL through >> litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages. >> Can someone >> please explain to me how the original authors of the >> software have >> incurred a financial loss because an individual did not >> respect GPL. I >> mean the original authors are getting zero finiancial >> compensation for the >> code they have made public so exactly how much are they >> loesing if someone >> else derives a work from theirs and will not share his >> source, let me see >> 0 times 1,000,000 - yep still ZERO!!! > > I can explain it to you. Whether you understand the > explanation is up to you. > BUT as you asked for an explanation, and as you will no > doubt want to rehearse your understandings on this subject > on subsequent occasions, I'd be much obliged if you'd point > out any areas in the following that seem to be erroneous. > > The misunderstanding is based on a misunderstanding of value > and ownership. A "miser" / collector / hoarder who owns say > 1000 gold doubloons and gets them out each night and > examines them / plays with them, but who has no intention of > ever spending or selling them, may be said by some to be > wasting the resource. The coins could be sold and the money > used otherwise. A logical [from some perspectives] > conclusion is that other people would be justified to > liberate / steal said doubloons and "use" them more > appropriately. / Few would find this argument has very much > merit. Some would - usually from either extremes of the > 'political'/'social' spectrum ie "He is not making good use > of the resource but I would" / "The resource should be used > to benefit all people". Roughly start at raving libertarians > and raving communists and work back towards the centre until > the argument stops working for you. > > The concept of "value to the owner" is too narrowly defined > if it has only monetary worth assigned. Which is the problem > with the above argument. If someone gives up a very high > paying job to sit on the beach / smell the roses / spend > time with their family / help the poor / join a religious > order / ... there will be people who criticise them. Whether > their motivation is 'what a waste of time' / I feel better > this way / "God insisted" / ... people who do not own their > motivation will question or criticise it to a variable > extent. > > Value and worth can come from more than $ made. The > traditional beautiful sunset / art appreciation (as opposed > to art $ appreciation) / love of family / the great outdoors > / ... is not easily translated to $. > > Proceeding from the above: If a person owns something and > their preferred recompense is that others get to share it, > who are you [[apart from being Sergio :-) ]] to deny them > that right or that assessment of value. If their best > recompense is gained by having others reciprocate in kind, > and such a concept is anathema to you, then you are the > worst possible person to validly proclaim on the merits of > their choice. If they own something, and wish to share it > with people who will share what they add to it, then your > desire to do otherweise is theft of their copyrighted right, > of their enjoyment, of their preferred recompense. Why > should a thief be able to say that an owner has no right to > their property when the UN was set upm (apparently) to > ensure that they retained this right? > > Capitalists proclaim as a core belief that a person has the > right to the capital that they own - the right to use it, > grow it, risk it. Or do nothing with it. If they buy a > building, or a field in order to try to make their capital > grow. Or join forces with others so that their combined > capital can (they hope) work more effectively. Or buy > capital from others at a rate that both freely agreee to. - > Who (of the capitalist mind) will disagree? Unless a seed > fall into the ground ... . Cast your bread upon the waters > and ... . [Wet bread?]. SO: A world full of ecstatic and > well served software users is the greatest desire of some. > Their "capital" is enhanced *in their estimation* by the > growth of that of others. If they seek to achieve this with > their capital, what right have you to oppose them? Answer: > In the capitalist system you every right, as long as you do > not violate their rights to use their capital as they see > fit. > > When it comes to recompense for those who steal their > capital the loss need not be damages per se. It can be the > visible profit that has been made by those who have stiolen > their capital and locked it up in a $ deal. By preventing > those who use their caputal from passing it on or modifying > it in a way which is profitable by their measures the thief > has made personal profit. What % of that personal profit > rightly belongs to the true opwner may be easy enough for a > court to decide. If,as in in the example given recently, the > stolen property constitutes 90% of the end product then the > recompense may be 90% of the profit, before damages. > > Does all this sound like utter rubbish to you? > Of course it does. > So perhaps substitute some of your own intangible rights, or > those of your family or close friends. I could offer some > suggestions so repugnant as to cause mass indignation while > makibng my point quite well. But instead, try thinking up > some of your own. A software product is the brain child of > its creator. Loved and cherished and brought to fruition. In > many cases a great labour of love. Find parallels that speak > to you and then ravish and violate them. Deal with them in > your mind as others deal with someone's beloved software > [[ :-) ]] and go from there. > > While I think of it, would you please provide me with a link > to the source code listings and user manuals of any software > that you have created so that I may see if there is anything > there that I want to 'improve' and sell at personal profit. > Please provide PF copyright waivers so I don't have any > subsequent hassles. > > > > Russell > > * All opinions are wrong. Some opinions are useful. > :-) > (Derivative work from copyright (expired) material from > George Box.) -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist