Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 12:25 pm Antoon Pardon writes: >>> I could have a good recipe too, just as others. Maybe Chris got >>> his his idea for a recipe from a public source. >> >> And then spent years and funds developing my own "touch". If you >> steal the fruits of that effort, you are stealing from me. > > No I'm not. You don't have any less than before, so you were not > stolen from. Sorry, that is NOT the definition of theft. The definition of theft is taking what is not yours without permission. If you take my recipe without my leave, you are stealing and you are a thief. Do you really not understand that morality is about YOUR actions and not whether you got away with something or whether it's okay, because nothing obvious is missing from your victim? It is **wrong** to take without permission. > You may have suffered damages, but similar damages can come from > some else developing his own touch that is better. There is a significant difference between what happens in fair competition and what happens in theft. When you compete fairly with me, the playing field is level. When you steal from me, it is not. And you open the door for me to treat you immorally in return. And, once again, being a moral being is about the path YOU choose. It is **wrong** to take without permission. > Now if you argue that people who invested in development should > have protection from the law against damages that result in people > using your results with compensation, I can understand that. > > But that doesn't mean people stole from you. If you take what isn't yours without permission, it is stealing. That is morally wrong. Justify it all you like -- you're in large company. Nevertheless, it is theft, it is stealing, it is wrong. >> Correct. This isn't about exclusivity. It's about protecting the >> author of a work from theft of that work. > > No it isn't. Your work wasn't stolen. You still have the knowledge > of your own recipe, so nothing was taken from you. Nonsense. You've taken what was not yours to take. That is theft. Consider an explorer who's sacrificed good years with family, who's sacrificed some elements of health, who's invested considerable funds in exploring a heretofore unexplored part of the world. Our intrepid explorer now creates some lovely maps to sell to recoup some of the lost funds, repair health and "make it up" to the family. If you copy those maps--and since you have lost no family time, no health and very little funds--you can sell these maps at cut rate prices. Which **steals** the explorer's ability to recoup on the considerable investment and risk made to reach the goal. >> It has nothing to do with how useful the work is. >> It has nothing to do with how easy it is to copy the work. >> >> It has everything to do with respecting the author's work. > > That doesn't make disrespect of someone's work, theft. None have said it is. But theft is disrespect (and just plain wrong). >> Indeed. And if I spent years coming up with the perfect beer recipe, >> do I not own the results of that effort? > > No, information is not something that can be owned. Why not? Says who? Thankfully, I'm one of the only owners of my ATM PIN number. If I couldn't own this piece of information, that would not be a Good Thing. >> But I ask you, on what moral grounds do you claim that knowledge is >> freely shared? > > I didn't claim that it is freely shared. Nobody can be forced to > share what he knows. I claimed you can't treat it as property. Depends on how you define property. > If property is handed from one person to an other, the original > owner looses the property (although he can get something in exchange). If you narrowly define property as a physical thing, then the above is true. However, I think we've evolved enough as humans to recognize that there are other forms of (non-physical) property. > If information is handed from one person to an other, that information > is not lost to the first person. That definition is too narrow. Sometimes when information is shared, something precious is lost. There is a great deal more to life than whether copying of some bits leaves the original bits mostly intact. All of which is a somewhat pointless side trip away from the simple fact that taking without permission is theft. It's really a very simple moral equation. Do you want the right to define "property" that is legally obtained and rightfully yours? Then you must grant others that same right. The moment you open the door to the idea that there are circumstances (in your opinion) that justify theft, you've opened the door for others to come up with their own reasons why they can steal from you. For example, if I seduce your wife--and you never know about it--will you readily agree I've taken nothing from you? Your wife is still as she was (except for that little secret smile)--nothing *obvious* has been "taken" from you........ so, it's all okay? >> If I have a staff of research encyclopediaists doing an online >> encyclopedia, do you say I must make that knowledge freely available? > > Excelent example. The information in your encyclopedia will be freely > available. You won't be able to forbid anyone from taking information > out of your encyclopedia distributing it. They will have to use their > own words to communicate this informations, because you have copy right > over the articles in your encyclopedia, but you have no, or very little > right over the information in it. The raw content, correct. They will have to do much the same thing as I did--form raw content into something useful. If they rely to much on stealing my work, they are thieves, and I have the recourse to the law. Much like our map maker. Anyone else can choose to make an approximately similar investment and fairly compete. If they do a better job, then our map maker loses--that's life--that's fair. >> How do I pay my researchers? > > Today you will probably go broke because people have other means to > find the information in your encyclopedia. You are not the owner > of this information. I am indeed the owner of the information **presentation**. > Should people be willing to pay for your service it will be for the > extra organisation you bring in your data, the ease of finding > something or other things they may find usefull. Exactly. And that is my investment, and that is my property, and that is exactly what you may not steal from me. And it is information, also. The raw content was never mine in the first place--it was "out there" waiting to be discovered, collated, presented. What is mine is that value-added stuff. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .