Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Wed Sep 07 2005 04:16 am

Gerry Quinn wrote:
 
> Sure, the value of a book under your scheme would probably be more
> tha the royalty on a single copy sold to the person who wants it most. 
> But not necessarily much more.

No, not necessarily. And that is as it should be in a free market. On
the other hand, some information disclosures are considered quite
valuable by such consortia of purchasers, at least for disclosure
to open source - e.g. the EUR100K collected for GPLing of Blender 3D.

> After all, if you publish a 
> copy of the latest Harry Potter under your own name, what have you
> taken from Ms. Rowling?  

I would have lied to and likely defrauded whoever I supplied plagiarised
copies _to_.

> Your last sentence indicates that even you admit some sort of IP
> ownership  rights, 

I have already pointed out that your use of the term I"P" is tactic to
blur the distinctions between various rights under the law, and that I
do NOT argue against each and every one of all the different rights you
find convenient to lump together. I was quite up-front about support
for some sort of identification as an author of a work (perhaps waived
if you want to remain anonymous or pseudonymous. Come to think of it,
attaching another real author's name to a piece you wrote should also
probably be fraudulent.).

  
>> With plagiarism still fraudulent, but without copyright, if people
>> want another work of similar quality, then they know it's a better
>> bet to pay you, not me for the work of creation. If you want to be
>> paid  indefinitely, just do new work.  That is quite sufficient
>> "ownership" over information.
> 
> Why is it a better bet in any significant way to pay the author?  It's
> only the price of one copy. 

That was admittedly unclear - definite overuse of word "work". I meant
that it was a better bet to pay the author for the next service of
creation (that payment might be significantly larger than the price of
one copy).

> You disgust me with your reference to 'suppression of cryptographic
> research' 

Well, that's nice. Given your anti- intellectual-freedom attitude, I'm
quite happy to disgust you. I'd begin to worry if you professed
undying love for me. I doubt you're my type.

.