Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Tue Sep 06 2005 12:33 pm In article , david.golden@oceanfree.net says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > Destroying IP is a communist act insofar as the IP was > > owned by private individuals. > You bandy about the word "communism". I think it's been adequately > demonstrated at this stage you don't know what you're talking > about when you use it. On the contrary, it is your fantasy utopia that shows *you* know nothing about it. The ideas you are proposing are communist in their essence - deal with it. And don't waste peoples' time with the assertion that you are promoting some kind of 'anarchism' instead - historically anarchism has served only as a precursor and an excuse to sign up some extra mugs and thugs for communism. > > fails to address the question of > > why future Cipros should be developed. > > Because there'd be demand for them. But no reward for the inventor. So why bother? > > [More irrelevant quotes. I do not recall ever hearing that Robert > > Heinlein placed his SF books in the public domain.] > > > Not irrelevant at all. And do try to separate the message of the quote > from the man who said it. Jefferson was a slave-owner, doesn't mean > he was wrong when he wrote Heinlein's actions show that either he didn't mean what you imply him to mean, or that the arguments presented were just so much empty blather. > "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of > exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an > idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps > it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the > possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of > it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, > because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea > from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who > lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." And Jefferson doesn't seem to have had issues with provisions for IP in the US Constitution. He did insist on free speech, which is advanced and even defended by copyright. One could argue that the above is an argument against patents (not copyright, whch in no way protects ideas). But we can safely assume that Jefferson clearly also saw the merits in granting the temporary monopolies known as patents - he was not a moron. - Gerry .