Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Tue Sep 20 2005 11:04 pm David Golden writes: >>> 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. As I've said before, mere chemical analysis of a compound is not necessarily enough to reverse-engineer. But that's not really what's happening here in this analogy. What you have is a magic replicator that can copy my beer for a tiny fraction of what it costs me to produce it originally. That's theft. > The "right" to exclusivity prior to disclosure exists > primarily because coerced disclosure of information requires force I disagree. That's a force-based argument and morally bereft. The moral argument recognizes that, "Hey, I'd like to maintain a few secrets, TOO (without spending an arm and a leg protecting them), so it behooves me to recognize that *moral*right* in others. > On the other hand, to create exclusivity post-disclosure one needs > coerce someone else, preventing them from copying. What a sad world when we have to coerce people to not be thieves. (And we do have to coerce the morally stupid, and it is a sadder world for it.) -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .