Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Randy Howard
Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 08:36 am

Rob Thorpe wrote
(in article 
<1127239063.254603.32140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> Chris Sonnack wrote:
>> Rob Thorpe writes:
>> 
>>> A compiler is completely different to a hammer or saw, the hammer or
>>> saw doesn't make the product almost incomprehensible, even to those
>>> knowledgable in the subject.
>> 
>> 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.

Your repeating it over and over again doesn't make it so.  That 
may work for advertising executives and their victims, but it 
doesn't wash in a room full of sentient beings.

>>> What shouldn't apply is copyright, people should not be able to
>>> arbitrarily protect with copyright what they distribute.
>> 
>> 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.

Point?  If I write software, but never distribute it, then you 
don't even have an opportunity to steal it, unless you break in, 
either electronically or physically.  If you choose the latter, 
you're likely to get shot, s-e-v-e-r-a-l times.

If I do distribute it, then if you do not obtain it through one 
of the methods I allow, then we have a problem.

>>> 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.  I would say that most of the world around us
> is made by building on the work of others, and much of it directly.

If your intention has been to display your utter lack of 
personal ethics, you have finally, and convincingly, succeeded. 
I get it now.  Apparently thievery is perfectly ok, as long as 
you have enough other people doing the same thing.  There is 
some sort of "moral authority" provided by being one of a 
million bank robbers, instead of one of a dozen.  Wow.  I wonder 
if I will live long enough to see us recover from this bs as a 
society, or if we'll wind up with a society in which you can 
have whatever you can steal without getting caught.  

>> 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.  If I give you, or anyone else code, I can still keep a copy
> and so can they.

Then you're probably a big fan of printing your own money, eh?  
That way, you can keep a copy, and give a copy to your friends.

All you need is a suitably high-quality printer, and a 
willingness to spend a lot of time hiding from the secret 
service.

>> 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.  

Only if you have a severe lack of imagination, are lazy, or 
both.  This "I want what I want, when I want it, and I want it 
now" crap is a cancer on society.


-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.