Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Sat Sep 03 2005 04:01 am

Scott Moore wrote:

> Some of the quotes in the articles you posted are priceless:

I presume you mean articles written by unidentified other people on some
wiki I supplied a URL to. Linking to an article is not the same as
endorsing everything the document at the other end of the link.

All I wrote was:

DG> Again, I'm not saying copyright is "as bad as" slavery, though
DG> actually "Intellectual Slavery" is a term used by some people 
DG> for I"P": 

And then supplied a link to some documentary evidence of some people
using the term with reference to copyrighted material. I anticipated a
"nobody calls it that" response, link was proof to the contrary. A link
to google might have sufficed, but for the fact the first few hits are
for the term used with reference to religion rather than copyright and
patent.

For all I know, that particular "intellectual freedom manifesto" is
deliberately stupid in places. Though some of the examples you
apparently think are just giggles may not be perceived as quite so
amusing by others, particularly the incredible AIDS research situation
[1] where various companies claim to "own" various aspects of the
biochemistry of humanity, and US companies' instrumental roles in
Chinese censorship [2][3]

[1]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/022800-03.htm
[2]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-06-19-our-view_x.htm
[3]
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,68326,00.html

.