Message 01721 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 61/129 L19 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux

The GPL locks the gate open.

  Note that it doesn't get rid of the concept of a lock or having a gate,
it just locks *this* gate open.  It protects the rights of the creators of
software to make that determination for themselves, not to be changed by a
third party -- even if that third party is a creator of a legal derivative

Yes, that is my point.  The GPL locks (only the software it is applied to)
property just as strongly as any 'closed' licenses.  The only difference is
in the state of the gate.

IP is an excuse to disallow my synapses their full functionality.  IP
cripples consumers to increase dependency.  The goal of IP law is to
eventually locked closed all human intellect.

  When we get beyond IPR to discuss PCT, does that feeling still apply?

  Is copyright an excuse to disallow your synapses their full
functionality?  If it is, is it a justifiable limitation as a tradeoff?
Do you believe that creators should receive moral and material rewards for
their creations?  Is it a matter of yes/no, or how much?

  I happen to believe that to creators that copyright is like water: too
little and you dehydrate, and too much and you drown.  The negative
feelings most of us have towards current copyright laws are because we are
drowning, but is abolishing (and thus dehydrating) a reasonable response?

  I have found few that believe that plagiarism should be legal, but also
few that believe that anyone should be handed over governance control of
all ICT tools in order to protect against rights infringement.  How do we
go from our current unhealthy drowning situation to a healthy situation
without missing the mark and dehydrating instead?

I agree a person should be rewarded for discovery.

Possible caveman scenario:
Ogg, I know how make fire.  You want know?  Give me leg of animal, and I
show you.

When IP locks synapses closed, the revenue continues long after the work is
<same as above> +  You must not show anyone else how make fire, or they owe
me meat too!

RMS recognized this as a form of oppression and found a hack to keep the
elite from removing our independence.

  I have yet to be convinced it is a hack rather than a legitimate
codification in contract law of the creators' rights protected in
copyright.  I believe the GNU GPL is less of a 'hack' than the
license-of-the-hour stuff (different per product, per customer, per
version, per patch) we see from vendors like Microsoft.

Of course I mean 'hack' as a compliment.  The reason I chose that word is
because I am impressed with the logic.

A summary of what I view as this 'logic' might have been something like:

RMS <grumbling and dreaming during a bad night on the MIT lab couch>:
"I reject the idea that IP represents property, but the law is already in
place.  Since LOCKING CLOSED this Imaginary Property is tantamount to
removing the rights to education, I will create the GPL to allow users to
LOCK OPEN their IP.  When IP is LOCKED OPEN, it can once again be treated as
the thing it is: access to thought"


Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 61/129 L19 [In index]
Message 01721 [Homepage] [Navigation]