Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Antoon Pardon Date : Thu Sep 22 2005 08:31 am Op 2005-09-21, Chris Sonnack schreef : > 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. Information can't be taken. Sure if I broke into your house and stole the piece of paper your recipe was written on, I'm a thief. If I was visiting your firm, could read the recipe and remember it, then I didn't take anything, I didn't steal. > 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? I'm not talking morals. That it isn't stealing doesn't imply it is moral. If you want to argue that it is immoral, fine, but that doesn't mean it is theft. IMO trying to imply that it is immoral by trying to argue that it is theft is a lost battle because each time someone tried, the arguments used would imply in a number of fair trade actions being labeled theft too. > It is **wrong** to take without permission. But we are not talking about taking. >>> 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. You are using a circular argument. That the explorer loses his ability to recoup on the considerabl investment and risk made to reach the goal can be caused by a number of means that are considered fair trade. So this arguement doesn't imply that it is stealing. Stealing is the idea you started from. This has been so with all the arguments I've seen here. People argue that copying has a number of effect suggesting that such effect imply stealing. But they never did, the same effects could always be caused by fair trade actions too. So the only way that stealing could be the result is by starting from it. >>> 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? Because it can't be taken from someone. > 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. No, you don't own that information. You can try to hide it, but if it were somehow in display you can't forbid people to look at it. You can forbid people to use it to get money from your account, but that doesn't mean you own the information. >>> 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. And I think that it is wrong to call exclusive use rights of information, 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. But not property. > There is a great deal more to life than > whether copying of some bits leaves the original bits mostly intact. Sure, that doesn't imply that all those things are property. > All of which is a somewhat pointless side trip away from the simple > fact that taking without permission is theft. But this simple fact doesn't imply that information can be treated as property and can be taken. > 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? You are mixing all kind of different things. You have legal and illegal actions, you have moral and immoral actions and you have stealing and non-stealing. Now about you seducing my wife. You didn't steal her and you did nothing illegal, at least not where I live. Now if you want to argue that copying is immoral and should be illegal that it is one thing, but it doesn't imply stealing. -- Antoon Pardon .