Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Serge Skorokhodov (216716244)
Date : Sat Aug 27 2005 05:35 pm

>> 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.
> 
Author's rights aren't a problem per se. I guess they are
irrelevant in the current discussion. Possible problems arise
from the dual nature of software. From one viewpoint, a piece of
software is something that can be just utilized for some
practical benefit. And it is an idea and/or "piece of knowledge"
from another.

Authorship is a natural right that cannot be sold or otherwise
transferred without a kind of broken logic so widespread in
modern corporate society:)

The right to benefit from utility of a piece of software can be
considered as intellectual property and should be protected in
some way. No doubt about this.

The knowledge that a piece of software contain cannot be
considered as "plain" IP without compromising public interests.
For example, American Constitution states (I cannot provide an
exact citation, sorry) that "... in order to stimulate inventors
we grant them _temporary_ exclusive right on utilizing their
inventions. The inventions must be transferred to public domain
after this fixed period of time ...". It's an excellent formula!
The word _temporary_ is the key here and we observe that this
exclusive right is getting less and less _temporary_ over the time:(

I don't think its moral to steal somebody else's code. But I
greatly doubt that it is moral to prevent other from
independently reproducing some design, algorithm or any other
"piece of knowledge". In short, I'm for "trade secrets" but
against "software patents":)

IMHO, Stallman and FSF focus on two things. First, they want to
prevent other parties (big companies?:) from usurping "the author
and/or a contributor right on utility of software" without
preventing public getting benefit from using the same software
(awkward but I hope it's understandable:). Second, they fight any
obstacles for knowledge sharing. Well, they may do it in somehow
extremist expressions but I'm sure they mind quite well:)
Personally, I like BSD better:))

As for intellectual property advocates, I believe that fear for
fair competition, the lust for "invent once and gain forever"
enforcement are their main (though hidden) motivation. And I'm
afraid I cannot consider such a motivation as moral... :)

Sorry for such a long message... :)

-- 
Serge

.