Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1229 gnu.misc.discuss:658 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jb3o+ From: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: The meaning of life, as it relates to hacking. Message-ID: Date: 23 Dec 89 21:18:52 GMT References: <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu> <4804@sugar.hackercorp.com> , <4822@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Class of '92, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 67 In-Reply-To: <4822@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Seems a bit hypocritical. the laws are supposedly to protect your intellectual rights - i did not mean to imply that rms was trying to protect your intellectual rights. > You're letting words have power over you. Intellectual property hasn't > anything to do with the rights of "intellectuals". And your elitist flaming > about what the "general population" is or isn't in favor of doesn't help > your argument. Excuse me, peter, but a) i am not flaming the general population - i am merely relating a fact - if you view it as being deragatory, then that seems to be *you* being elitist, not me. I happen to be related to the general population - i am (hopefully) not an elitist - not in the intellectuals group if i am elitist. b) most ordinary people i know are not concerned with intellectual property rights - rather they are concerned with the economic gains that they derive from intellectual property rights - ie. they sell those rights - thus, if they could be shown how to make the same gains and do without intellectual property rights, then i have utter confindence that they would. the general population struggles harder and harder every day in order to get more and more laws passed to steal others' rights from them - dont' think that intellectual property rights are any different - i think that only intellectuals and supposed intellectuals are concerned with intellectual property rights. > If they're willing to pay $350 a pop for it, then what's the matter? And > you'd be just as upset if they charged $50... or $5... if they didn't give > the source away. nope. i'd be just peachy keen if they sold the software for $50 or $5... i don't *want* the source to . secondly, if i can convince people to spend $1000000 on my college education every year should i? Just because you *can* take advantage of people doesn't mean that you *should*. > I've written that sort of thing for free, too. Not for GNU, though. But > there's no way I'd work under the sort of conditions you have to deal with > doing large real-time projects without pay. That's too bad. I guess that we'll never see any pd real-time systems with the name peter da silva on them any time soon - guess i'll stop holding my breath. look peter, if you don't want to, then don't. however, while i might be daunted to start one from scrath, if there was source available....pd source...i might be more likely to try...even if i did have to give away the source (provided i distribute it). > You ever worked on control software? Accounting software? Yes i've worked on accounting software....did i get paid....? well, i did get a free lunch (aprox. $7 value) for the entire days work. > Don't condemn a man 'till you've walked a mile in his shoes. I don't condemn you or anyone else. It does seem that you condemn rms, and i don't know if you have even tried on his shoes.... > -- > Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva yes, i have - and she enjoyed it, too. > `-_-' > 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere" iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank | R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS| disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me