Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Wed Sep 07 2005 01:29 pm In article , david.golden@oceanfree.net says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > 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_. Why? They bought something that you signed your name to. Presumably they are happy with the sort of thing that gets them. If they wanted something directly from Rowland, they would have asked. > > 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.). Only the latter makes sense in the context of the arguments you are making. As I've pointed out, people who buy 'Wizard Collection (various authors)' from David Golden Knock-Offs Inc., electronic version $5, know what they are getting, so by your argument nobody is being defrauded. And J.K.Rowling still has the $3 she got for the version you scanned, so obviously she's happy too, or at least has lost nothing. Isn't this also what the 'freenet' scumbag you linked to is/was trying to create? 'Free speech' for you, or at least the vile parasitic theft he is trying to label as 'free speech'? - Gerry Quinn .