Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Serge Skorokhodov (216716244) Date : Mon Aug 29 2005 06:13 pm Gerry Quinn wrote: > In article , suralis-s@mtu-net.ru says... > > >>Authorship is a natural right that cannot be sold or otherwise >>transferred without a kind of broken logic so widespread in >>modern corporate society:) > > > This is the sort of 'skeletal and useless remnant of IP' that I meant > in my reply to David Golden. > > The value of property resides largely in the fact of its being > transferable. > Exactly. But what do you call a kind of an individual's property that hinder the progress and normal functioning of the society as a whole? Still, a piece of land and "a piece of" knowledge are a bit different, aren't they? One cannot own knowledge, by no means. One can have _exclusive right_ to use some knowledge and/or benefit from it. Do you think this is appropiate? One cannot prevent somebody else from obtaining the same knowlage independently. It is only possible to deny other's right to obtain some knowledge and use it. Do you think this is appropiate? IP is a kind of ownership of knowledge to the great extent. It was hardly possible to even think of before 1980's and it's not the case outside the US even nowdays (depends on the specific country though:). The real problem that (let's call it so) the freedom of knowledge threatens to specific buiseness schemas. That's simple. And those who benefit from existing buiseness schemas just attempt to maintain their profits at the expence of the rights people enjoy for ages. Do you repsect those who defends their profits at the expence of other's natural rights? Or do you defend your personal profits and just don't mind anybody else's rights? :) Stallman and FSF activists are just understandable emotional reaction on this process, IMHO. They are extremistic but I understand their motivation. The motivation is not bad and until they haven't commited anything like killing doctors involved in abortation... :) It's definetaly both illigal and immoral to obtain unlicened copies of copyrighted material. Still we encounter pricing and fair use issues but it is a different story... :) -- Serge .