Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Sat Aug 27 2005 11:12 am

In article <1125080649.650054.60790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, 
robert.thorpe@antenova.com says...
> Chris Sonnack wrote:
> > David Golden writes:
> >
> > > The slavery example shows that what is considered property by the
> > > lawyers can change, anyway.
> >
> > A bad example, I think, due to the implication that it was just a
> > matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery.  The presumption
> > is that, all things being equal, the law could change back again.
> >
> > I do not believe all things ARE equal.  We realized that we were WRONG
> > about slavery and corrected that wrong.  Actually, we always pretty
> > much knew it was wrong--the error was in trying to pretend that the
> > folks we stole from Africa were not really people, but some form of
> > two-legged, articulate cattle.
> >
> > I VERY much doubt that the laws that have evolved to protect the
> > efforts of the author/musicial/programmer/architect will ever be
> > viewed as immoral.
> 
> There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the
> programmer, laws have been created to protect the author,musician and
> architect, yes.  But it's those same laws that have been applied to
> "protect" the programmer also.
> 
> The situations are in fact completely different.  There is no concept
> of source and object code for example in any of those other
> occupations.  An author, musician or architect can't hide how their
> creations actually work, as a programmer can be copyrighting an almost
> incomprehensible blob of machine code generated by a compiler.

One might imagine that an author could have extensive notes that he 
doesn't publish, or an architect uses a secret formula to create 
columns that will look particuloarly impressive.  It seems a minor 
detail anyway.

> The other professions are also not incremental.  I think I could, with
> enough time to understand the problem, add a useful feature to any
> piece of software in existance.  I think most programmers could.  I
> doubt though that I could improve on Chapter 4 of "The Great Gatsby",
> "Mr Tambourine Man" or King's College Chapel, and I doubt anyone else
> could.

In the case of music, lots of people are think they could use part of 
someone else's work to good effect.  Indeed, there are those who whine 
about copyright laws preventing them from ripping stuff off as the 
wish.  Without copyright, many singers would feel they could 
considerably improve on Dylan's renditions.  Many do now - but due to 
copyright, Dylan earns something.

> Lastly, ask users of software whether they think the laws that protect
> it are correct.  Many will tell you that they protect one guy, and his
> name's Bill.

Self interest is a long-established component of the human OS.  _I_ 
should be well-paid for my work, but everyone I buy stuff from is 
gouging me.

- Gerry Quinn

.