Message 00605 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00350 Message: 5/5 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Open source vs capitalism



Hi, Scott!

On Thursday 14 February 2002 03:59, Scott Mackinney wrote:
[Stefan Mn wrote:]
But at the moment that's far from what Free Software is.
Actually the vast majority of P2P-ed music is copyright.

But to the end user, its still all free.

"Free" as in free software basically means 

 * that everybody is allowed to copy and distribute it, and 

 * that everybody is allowed to change it, and to copy and
   distribute the modified version.

For most of the music, it is forbidden to copy and distribute 
them. Of course, these laws are currently unenforcible due to 
the nature of the internet, but you cannot deny that they exist. 
And there are people who are working towards making these laws 
enforcible. :o(

Only the cost of the
download, free to use, free to play, etc.

You can listen to this music at home, but you can't play it in 
the public without having to pay for it.

Though I don't believe it, software may have some special
conditions / features other information products do not 
share. Works of art like music may be an example because the
product is usually not patched like software is.

Not true. Folk songs have been patched and forked for centuries. 

But, then, this may only be the wrong way to look at it. If
you see any kind music in a bigger context, it all results
on inspiration from others.

That's the point where copyright ends. It's the same situation 
with people writing spread sheets and ego shooters inspired by 
others. 

(Your argumentation sounds a bit like "Any music is free", which 
is not true. It's as proprietary as M$ Excel.)

 On the other hand as often pointed out science shares a lot
of principles with Free Software and if production of goods
is getting more and more scientific

OTOH, science becomes more and more proprietary. Just think 
about patents in universities, or professors forcing their 
students to buy proprietary books.

In the years to come why can't biogenetics produces orchard
plants that can grow along roadsides,

Like stinging nettles? ;o)

Well, Free Software is *not* based on altruism. People
publishing Free Software have a range of individual interests
in doing so.  BTW: Personally I think if you base a society
on altruism you get nowhere.

It is not *generally* based on altruism. Some do it for fun, 
however there are also people who create free software because 
that is what they believe in. Some of the latter sort even ruin 
themselves, such as Tom Lord, the author of arch. I think that 
is a very extreme example of altruism.

I think academics in the universities around the world had
better do a much better job quickly and I think the internet
allows for this to occur at a global level.  I think the good
politicians need to work much harder.  Together with the staff
working for our governments, both academics and politicians
need to collaborate in a manner similiar to the development of
free software to provide the vital needs to everyone at no
cost. 

Right!

I do not believe any software licensing arrangements will ever
work effectively.  I think it is bizarre to suggest that
someone that sells something, then has any right over the
product.

That is different with free software.

Information deserves no special rights such as the
GPL, or copyright.

You cannot compare these things. The GPL is there to take away 
the impact of copyright, in a far more effective way than just 
by renouncing it.

cu,
Thomas
 }:o{#

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/


Thread: oxenT00350 Message: 5/5 L2 [In index]
Message 00605 [Homepage] [Navigation]