Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Tue Aug 30 2005 12:16 pm In article , suralis-s@mtu-net.ru says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > In article , suralis-s@mtu-net.ru says... > > 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? I imagine it would be some kind of property that he took away, rather than something that he created from nothing. Unless you mean 'hinder' in the same sense as the existence any private property 'hinders' its use for whatever purpose the State wishes at this moment. > 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? I have no difficulty thinking of cases in which it is appropriate. But is there any point rehearsing the case for copyright and patents here? Most people agree that there are good reasons for having them, even if many disagree on the extent and what they should be applied to. Patents, for example, may work better on chemical processes than on software or business systems. Copyright is less of a problem because it applies to fields in which there are effectively infinitely many routes to achieve a given effect. So yes, I think it is appropriate that it is illegal to scan the works of an author and run off cheap copies either free or for profit, even though this is a denial of the righr to 'obtain some knowledge and use it'. You still have a right to write a different book on similar themes. > IP is a kind of ownership of knowledge to the great extent. It > was hardly possible to even think of before 1980's First copyright law is generally said to be the Statute of Anne, 1710. > 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? :) What you claim as natural rights, I don't see as such. > 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... :) I'm not sure what you're arguing about if you think it's immoral. Software patents only? - Gerry Quinn .