Re: [ox-en] OSS & post-development practices (waag, amsterdam, june 3)
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:
And I assume that the complaint is that they wrote 'commercial' when
they meant 'proprietary', which is a mistake I used to keep making too.
The problem is, strictly speaking legally, Free/Libre and Open Source
Software is proprietary as well: it has an owner, and is not in the public
domain (as the law defines this term).
I have stuck to saying Free Software and non-Free Software (as defined
by the FSF) if I needed to really be precise.
Language is often a problem in trying to educate people on these issues.
Another concern to me is the talk of "Intellectual Property Rights" which
implicitly accepts the notion that thoughts may be property of someone.
Yep, I keep seeing that and it's annoying. But when people are talking
about the bundle of laws (patent, copyright, trade secret, design rights
etc) all they have in common is exactly the idea of 'IPR'. So how do you
get round using that phrase personally? Stick 'so-called' in front of
it every time? I find I end up going for very long paraphrases just to
avoid saying 'IPR' and would like a better solution!
If you have the opportunity to clarify things, it helps. Intellectual
Property has a meaning in legal circles that is generally misunderstood by
laypersons. This misunderstanding leads people to believe things that
aren't really true, and to oppose things they might otherwise support.
If it can be avoided, don't use the term Intellectual Property outside
of legal or para-legal communities -- but if you must use it, do provide
some documentation.
Think of other intangible property such as an insurance policy. If I
take out life insurance on a family member, it does not mean that I *own*
that family member. It just means that I own the rights that exist as a
policy holder. The same is true of Intellectual Property which is just
another form of intangible property. You do *not* own the idea (no law
grants you a monopoly on an 'idea' per-say), the technique/process
(patent), or the expression of an idea (copyright). You just own a
specific set of rights that holding the copyright/patents/etc on that
intangible property may grant you.
The rhetoric we hear from organizations such as the Recording Industry
Association of America of "theft is theft" is invalid, and in some courts
they have even clarified that the concept of theft does not apply to
infringing on rights associated with intangible property.
It is important to remember that the Free Software movement was founded
as a form of Creators' Rights movement. We have more in common with other
creators of works under copyright than we tend to recognize. We do
believe in creative rights, and we do tend to believe in (honour and
depend on) copyright. We just exercise our rights, through our licenses,
in ways different than the legacy/incumbent software monopolies (non-free
software vendors) do.
Note: I will tomorrow be attending the AGM of Canada's Creators' Rights
Alliance which is why I am thinking about this at the moment.
I'm drafting another article that didn't get finished in time for this
to try to make these connections:
http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/FLOSS-Ps.shtml
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than
politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/