Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!claris!peirce
From: peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Two separate issues
Message-ID: <10257@claris.com>
Date: 9 Jun 89 00:08:21 GMT
References: <8906071718.AA00282@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Claris Corporation, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 64

In article <8906071718.AA00282@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>Someone sent me this message:
>
>   You write:
>   > The difference between this and China is a matter of degree.  The
>   > spirit is the same.
>
>   I disagree.  Your definitions of ``free'' and ``freedom'' intrigue me.
>   Here you are conducting a holy war against ``evil software hoarders''...
>
>This indicates a confusion of two separate issues which I suspect shows
>I didn't distinguish them clearly enough.  So I will try to do so now.
>
>For 6 years I have been working on a project to make software free,
>but not by coercing anyone, only by writing free software.  And, in
>general, they have not tried to coerce me either.
>
>I believe software should be free.  But my message quoted above is
>about a different issue, where traditionally accepted rights are in
>danger.
>
>Apple and others wish to take away people's freedom to write software,
>whether free or not.  And Apple does plan to use coercion to get their
>way, if they can.  They hope to get injunctions, and then others will
>have the choice of obeying Apple or being imprisoned.

I disagree.  Apple does not want to "take away people's freedom to write
software" in the general sense.  They DO wish to prohibit people from
writing software that infringes on their intellectual property rights.  

In this country we have many freedoms, but there are limits set on them.     
One limit is set forth in the constitution concerning intellectual
property.  Article 1, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power"
...
"8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries."

To implement this the Congress has set up the Patent and Copyright system.
This system DOES restrict my complete freedom to do what I please.  I
can not reproduce anothers work if it is protected by a Patent or Copyright.

If Apple feels that its legal rights are being violated, then they should
take the violators to court.  The violators should fight this in court if
they don't think they have done anything wrong.  And the courts will decide
who was right.  

I know I would want the same right to fight for my intellectual property
rights if they were infringed.  For example, if I were to spend X years
inventing a new way to interact with computers (or refine oil for that
matter) and someone came along and said "that's nice, I think I'll use
it", I'd have two choices.  I could say "fine, enjoy it", or take them
to court to defend my patents or copyrights.  

Both choices are within my rights and both are moral.

I don't (think I) have any objections to what the FSF is doing with
it's Copyleft, etc.  But I do object to them trying to coerce people
and/or companies into giving up their rights to their intellectual
property.  I hope the FSF fails at this.

-- michael peirce