Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Tue Sep 20 2005 11:29 pm Rob Thorpe writes: >> SOME compilers produce output that can easily be decompiled. But this >> is all a foolish line of debate. Whether the final product is opaque >> or transparent has nothing to do with this. It's just red herring. > > Yes it does, see my discussion with Randy Howard in this thread. Nothing I've seen obtains, and I don't have time for detailed thread mining. If you're speaking to me, speak to me or surrender the point. >>> No, it should apply to people writing programs too. It would not be >>> civilised to demand that people give away their secrets. > > > > How about the fruits of their labor? > > :) I don't think I ever said you have to do that. So.... are we on the same page? I have a copy right? >> Not "distribute", **create**. Copyright is about protecting the >> creator of a work from others freely benefiting for their efforts. > > Yes, but it doesn't matter very much that I own the copyright on my > shopping list. Copyright only becomes important once something is > distributed. Perhaps in your mind. Not in mine. The fact is, you DO have a copyright on your shopping list. That you would never bother to enforce it, or that no one in their right mind would bother to steal it does not change that simple fact. >> Programming is BOTH a science and an art. Very similar to architecture >> in that regard, because aesthetics are as important as material sciences. > > I don't think it's vastly important personally. So? It's easily demonstrated that it is both. FAR smarter analysts in this business have drawn the architecture analogy (which I do agree is very apt). > Given a solution to a problem that's exists but isn't elegant I'd > choose to use it, if nothing elegant existed. But if an elegant solution did, you pick it every time, wouldn't you. See, it IS important! :-) >>> It just has to work, so building directly on the work of others is >>> not tasteless. >> >> Not only tasteless, but--without their leave--morally dead wrong. > > That's only your opinion. No, I've repeatedly supported that opinion here with moral argument. > I would say that most of the world around us is made by building on > the work of others, and much of it directly. Much of the world was built via slavery, rape, theft and exploitation. What's your point? That all that was a Good Thing? >> Listen, suppose you send me 10% of your income for the next five years. >> No real reason, I just think I have a right to it. Given your point >> of view on these matters, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty with my >> request. Please start sending checks immediately. > > Of course I have a problem with that. If I give you money I no longer > have it. So far so good..... > If I give you, or anyone else code, I can still keep a copy and so > can they. ....aw, ya lost it. Nope. You've already apparently agreed that I have a right to the fruits of my labor. SOMEONE expended effort creating that code you're ripping. By copying it, you're stealing from them. It has nothing to do with whether the original is left intact. Nothing. It has everything to do with the *immoral* act of theft. Is it okay to steal a painting if you leave an exact copy in place? Is it okay for me to seduce your wife if you never know it happened? >> Scientists are *explorers* of nature, and their *discoveries* (not >> their *creations*) are rightfully shared, because there is no sense >> of property there. >> >> However the *creative* work of scientists *is* rightfully protected >> by patent and/or copyright. >> >> Likewise, the *explorations* by computer scientists ARE usually shared >> in journals and papers. > > I would agree with your analysis of science certainly, but not of > computer science. The creative work of scientists, if patented or > copyrighted, is still understandable by their peers in the area. The > creative work of the programmer distributed as binary code are -in most > practical sense- not. That has nothing to do with anything. In fact, I find it a particularly silly argument. Practicality and ease do not factor into moral arguments. The level to which I understand something has ZERO to do with the morality of my helping myself to it. >> Nonsense. I can benefit from the work of others in exactly the same way >> that artists do: seeing their work as a "user" can inspire me, elevate >> me and give me new ideas. > > True. But this is quite a meagre benefit. NOT IN MY WORLD! It's a huge benefit. I can't begin to estimate the value that the art I've beheld has had in my life. >> What would be wrong is for me to benefit by stealing their work. > > I certainly agree with that, what I don't agree with is your > interpretation of what should be considered property. Yeah, I got that. :-) -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .