Re: [ox-en] Patents and Copyright, but what about other Exclusive Property Rights/Trademarks? (Was: RedHat and Fedora and SuSE and Novell)
- From: Martin Hardie <auskadi tvcabo.co.mz>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 06:06:40 +0200
On Friday 07 November 2003 00:14, Graham Seaman wrote:
If I join
someone's project, I don't expect to remove their name from code;
similarly with Fedora
1. thus it is clear that is the project OWNED by Fedora - business making
money out of your labour
2. but if I become part of their unpaid labour force and then decide I want to
adopt their code and build upon it I cannot call it anything like Fedora (or
amybe even Dog House.....)
Are these not restrictions on"information that wants to be free"?
Are they not ways for capital to capture the labour of the dare I call it the
"multitude" (insert here what name you want to give the labouring masses) -
does it not place a restiction on what people can do witht heir
labour/product of their labour time? Does it not capture the fruits of a
person's labour and turn it into a commodity for exchange - the thing called
Fedora or Red Hat?
How can people say one form of closedness is bad and one good??? What is the
basis for erecting these (artificial) divisions amongst forms of exclusive
property rights? Or does freedom only exist for "coders" and "hackers" in the
brave new world and thus openess only really matters when it comes to the
strict code?
Just wanting to put these things onthe table
Martin
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which
would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which is a
virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that
certainly exists or happened."Bishop Otto to Baudolino
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/