Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.legal
Subject: Re: lex and yacc in the public domain (responses)
Message-ID: <523@looking.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Apr-86 02:02:54 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.523
Posted: Mon Apr 14 02:02:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Apr-86 23:27:26 EST
References: <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <518@looking.UUCP> <864@watdragon.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.lang:2346 net.legal:3259
Summary: 

In article <864@watdragon.UUCP> cdshaw@watdragon.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
>
>I do so hate having my intelligence (whatever) insulted in this manner.
>
>To get to the point of the above material.. It is abundantly clear that
>we (the software producer/consumer community) have not come to any agreement
>whatsoever over a software rights structure. Propertarians such as
>Mr. Templeton follow a line that can be roughly paraphrased as
>"It's mine, and I have all rights forever". 
>
>On the other end of the scale, it seems that the GNU types say 
>"Hey, it's free for everyone.. do what you like".
>
>All one gathers from such representations are what the politics of the
>proponents are. While no structure can please everyone, somewhere in 
>the middle lies the "true path", and only through clear thought AND NOT
>POLEMICS can this lingering dispute be resolved.
>
>Chris Shaw    watmath!watrose!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath


It's not quite as you say.  The article I commented on seemed to bicker
about whether Yacc had appropriate copyright notices or trade secret
enforcement.  It treated these issues as the main issues.  I think that
most people agree that things like copyright notices are simply the
legal trappings helpful in enforcing property rights, and they are not
the rights themselves.

It was this attitude that I objected to.  Things like copyright notices
are symbols for property rights, they are not the rights themselves.
Detatchment of the symbol does not remove the rights it represents.
One might conceive of a system where the symbol is the right, and posession
is ten tenths of the law, but I don't think anybody would consider it
seriously.  (I hope not)

Personally, I find the lines of property much clearer here than with
physical property.  Communists might well argue that things like land, water
air and natural resources are the property of the commons, and as such
no person should own them.  But to suggest that a person's thoughts are
common property is both repugnant and ludicrous, to be honest.   "Repugnant"
is, of course, a value judgement on my part, but ludicrous stems from the
fact that nothing short of torture can take ideas from a person who does
not wish to give them.  This is a property right in the most fundamental
sense.

We can debate about what happens when a person happens to tell somebody
else an idea.  Mr. Stallman can go on saying that it instantly becomes
public property.  (In fact, he actually calls it an act of violence not to
disclose!)  He doesn't seem to think that this will result in a world
where creative thought is discouraged.  We are fortunate that most disagree
with him on that point.

You should complete your quote of the GNU philosophy:
>"Hey, it's free for everyone.. do what you like".
"and also do what you like with Mr. Templeton's stuff too!"
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473