Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Sat Aug 27 2005 09:56 am David Golden wrote (in article ): > But if he makes a copy of my car, I still have mine. He hasn't > taken my car, he's taken a copy of my car. Not the same thing, > and not something you'd give a crap about if you're > reasonable, at least so long as he changes the registration on his > car so you don't get speeding tickets that are supposed to be for him. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts there. The prevention of someone copying is not to protect the purchaser, it is to protect the seller, the one with the copyright, patent, whatever. In your loose analogy, Ford, GM, BMW, etc. would be the one complaining about the copy of the car, not you. > I thus simply regard it as best to consider the physical substrates > of particular copies of information as property. Not all property is physical. Perhaps you have heard of "intellectual property rights"? You can regard it however you like, but that doesn't change reality. When you get the laws changed to reflect your view of things, be sure and let me know so I can move somewhere else. > Treating the > information patterns themselves as property is wrong, I love the way people throw around the word 'wrong' when they really mean 'my opinion'. You thinking it is wrong, does not make it so for the general population, and more than Stallman telling people they are immoral for working on a particular development project does. [snipped far too many instances of 'substrate' and other rambling...] -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .