Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Sun Aug 28 2005 01:07 am

Randy Howard wrote:
 
> Of course, those with replicators would be very careful to
> charge for their services, and not allow people to replicate
> replicators, requiring them to be paid for instead.  :-)

Some no doubt probably would. But not something I'd do if built a
replicator (I'd probably give replicated replicators to people who
asked for a while, pretty sure people would stop asking very much after
a while as replicators saturated society). 

Some people of the "it's not enough for me to win, everyone else has to
lose" mindset would presumably want to kill me [Looks out window for
the black helicopters], so it might actually be in my interest for me
to spread replicators as wide as possible as fast as possible to
relatively reduce their motivation to kill me in particular because
there'd be all those other people they'd have to kill too to get rid
of the pesky freely replicable replicators.

And of course, replicators would still take copious energy and feed
stock to run, I would guess. Might need to solve that too.  Then again,
we're right next to a bloody great big star, so it shouldn't be too
hard for someone who can build a replicator. :-) 

> Not for "someone else's machine", but for the one it is licensed
> to run upon by the vendor.
 
Presupposes such licensing is valid. (actually, as I've previously
said, I'm not arguing against most aspects of trade secret or contract
law, which would allow some such licensing)

>> (like a set of glasses enhances your vision, your computer
>> enhances your logical/mathematical ability
> 
> Or worsens it, depending upon how you use it. 

Enhances the ability. Use/abuse is another matter.  If I, thanks
to my computer, can do a million flawless LIPS (logical inferences per
second), starting from some silly premises, my logical ability is
clearly enhanced but I'm going to reach logical conclusions that might
be silly but correct given the premises (nor necessarily silly, of
course, getting the right answer for the wrong reasons happens quite
often) - Computers just do exactly what you tell them, very quickly
(modulo the cosmic rays and radioactives in ceramic chip cases and
power surges and whatnot), not their fault if you tell them something
really stupid (like MS Windows ;-) )

> Never mind that you might be breaking the law.  Clearly that
> doesn't matter to you either.

Clearly. Illegal does not mean wrong.  Actually, for the most part, I
tend not to breach copyright law anyway, I tend to download and
redistribute only liberally licensed music, libre software, etc.,
letting the fruits of those who would restrict the freedom of others
"wither on the vine":  You're certainly increasing mindshare and
network effects of information by distributing it- even the countless
"pirated" (arr maties) MS windows and office copies enhance lock-in to
The MS Way.  See Bill Gates' comment about preferring the Chinese to
pirate Windows until he can work out how to make them pay for it,
rather than have them move to a different OS.

> So you have heard of them.  What are the "physical substrates"
> of IP? 

The various kinds IP rights themselves, you mean?  Given they are
various rules existing in people's demented minds, people's mushy
brains, for the most part, obviously, at least that's where they reside
while running (sources or serialised copies might be in written
statutes).  

You'll never show me a mind independent of a physical substrate, either
(I'm not one of those people who holds minds are particularly "special"
compared to other information patterns, and don't get me started on the
sheer insanity of "souls")

Yummy yummy brains.

> The best you can say is that people are willing to break the law in
> massive numbers,

That in itself is fighting a law, driving into into irrelevance.
A step to getting rid of the old anti-homosexuality laws in practice
was for them to be ignored with gay abandon [sorry, sorry] by
homosexuals and heterosexuals who thought they were stupid alike.

> but none of them will really fight for what 
> they believe in,

Well, some people are obviously persuaded to fly planes into buildings
for what they believe in.  Of course, even I don't think copyright law
is really a planes-flying-into-buildings meriting offence.

.