Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 07:30 pm

Scott Moore wrote:

> 
> Yes, we don't agree with you, therefore we must be stupid. Us knuckle
> draggers get it, o powerful ones.
> 


It's not a case of "we don't agree with you, therefore we must be
stupid", it's  "you're apparently too stupid (or more likely feigning
stupidity and misapprehension, as a trolling effort) to have a reasoned
argument with." 

You demonstrated a marked inability to grasp a simple analogy about a
property law as applied to people compared to a property law as applied
to information.  Property is mostly a legal result. Merely being
vaguely like physical property in behaviour in a legal system does not
make one of the artificial pseudoproperty rights worthy of defence on
economic or ethical grounds. You said people were "equating" slavery
and programming. That was not done, as was likely obvious to anyone
with adult human reading comprehension skills.

If the law were changed to create a tradeable "noseright", where people
were granted artificial tradeable legal monopolies on the right to smell
certain scents by the state, the noserights would act a bit like real
property too, and lots of people would presumably be in jail for
illegally smelling the scent of roses, marmalade, unwashed underarms,
etc., or perhaps because they thoughtlessly carried a sprig of pine
from the tree in their back garden into their sunroom, and negligently
let its scent waft around without the appropriate license from the
holder of the noseright on pine scent for the smelling of the scent of
pine - why, the bloody noseright violating commmie fucks will be
stealing our cars next! 

If you were a noseright holder, you might well scream bloody murder
about the abolition of noseright, but tough titties, noseright is
bloody stupid.

.