Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : David Golden Date : Tue Sep 20 2005 10:23 am Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:34:11 +0100 > David Golden wrote: > >> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >> >> > If you are copying - ie. brewing to the same recipe then you are >> > depriving Chris of exclusivity. >> >> Presupposes he has some sort of natural right to exclusivity >> post-disclosure; invalid. > You're assuming he disclosed the recipe. The whole thing was about someone copying beer - in such a case, releasing the beer was presumably enough information disclosure to reverse-engineer the recipe. > should this automatically remove any rights to > exclusivity ? The "right" to exclusivity prior to disclosure exists primarily because coerced disclosure of information requires force (it's entirely the responsibility of the secret-keeper to keep the secret, though: one doesn't need to coerce someone else to disclose if they're actively flinging information-laden photons at you). On the other hand, to create exclusivity post-disclosure one needs coerce someone else, preventing them from copying. > If so why ? Because that's what disclosure of information to another DOES. You can have your natural exclusivity: by choosing to not disclose. (Or perhaps even by nondisclosure contract with those you transmit information to if you admit contract law but not copy monopolies). This is old ground, though. I suggest you review the archives of the thread. .