Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Sun Aug 28 2005 03:06 am David Golden wrote (in article ): > 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). Do you also hand out flowers and pamphlets at the airport? > 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. :-) What time of day do you normally wake up from these dreams? :-) >> 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) Then what /are/ you arguing? I'm not sure I follow your point(s), apart from some sci-fi silliness that won't come true in the next few centuries. > >>> (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) - I tried several times to parse that out in a way that made sense, but finally gave up. > Computers just do exactly what you tell them, I've never had a computer do what I tell it, although I have told one to kill itself and other things over the years. I have had them do what I program them to do, which isn't always the same as what I wanted them to do. For those not trained in programming, they have much less hope, they'll be lucky if the software they are using solves a problem in a way that makes them happy with the results. Anyone who has spent much time with Microsoft software knows this can be a hit-or-miss proposition at best. >> 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. Sure, but that only works for dominant packages, not mom-and-pop software. You don't see people selling a dozen copies of something a month having this mentality. MS can afford it, because they've raped millions for decades. > (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") Okay, I won't. >> 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. I can't think of an example of anyone flying into a building over copyright law. Can you? -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .