Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1267 gnu.misc.discuss:699 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!pasteur!hecuba.Berkeley.EDU!mcgrath From: mcgrath@hecuba.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: The meaning of life, as it relates to hacking. Message-ID: Date: 24 Dec 89 19:10:23 GMT References: <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu> <4823@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Organization: Hackers Anonymous International, Ltd., Inc. (Applications welcome) Lines: 102 In-reply-to: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com's message of 24 Dec 89 04:09:02 GMT In article <4823@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > - 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. You're missing a stage here. The hidden assumption that such is possible. You have to assume something. I think "possible until proven otherwise" is a reasonable assumption in general. There has not been sufficient time during which efforts have been made to do without intellectual property laws (what is a right is a matter of opinion and philosophy) in the computer industry for anyone to tell. > the general population struggles harder > and harder every day in order to get more and more laws passed to > steal others' rights from them I presume you're talking about the war on drugs. That is the example the comes immediately to mind, as do the efforts in the US to prevent destruction of red-white-and-blue cloth. > - dont' think that intellectual > property rights are any different - i think that only intellectuals > and supposed intellectuals are concerned with intellectual property > rights. Anyone who understands the market system, too... (First off, understanding the market system, in the sense I think you mean, is an intellectual endeavor; if someone you call non-intellectual studies economic philosophy, they have just become intellectual.) I can't tell if you mean that anyone who understands the market system thinks about intellectual property laws and understands their economic implications, or if you mean that anyone who understands the market system is concerned with perpetuating intellectual property laws. The former is quite true, while the latter is most certainly not. I understand the market system, and I worry about intellectual property laws; but I support neither the market system, nor intellectual property laws. > nope. i'd be just peachy keen if they sold the software for $50 or > $5... i don't *want* the source to . OK, you're a new variety. You defend the FSF without believing in the same things they do. RMS is more interested in making the source available than how much you charge for the binaries. Under the GPL you can sell a binary for anything you can get for it so long as you give the source away. He's not a new variety. His statement is basic common sense. Most end-users of computers don't care about having source code. They wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it, and it takes up storage space (which is, I believe, what your whole `computer geek' tirade was about). Yes, under the GPL you can sell a binary for anything you can get for it. However, since you can't limit its distribution, there is no scarcity, so, in the market system, competition will keep the price very low (not much over the cost of distribution and overhead, so $5-$10 is a good estimate). The GPL doesn't need to tell you how much to charge for binaries; the economy will do that all by itself. The point is that not having the source is different from not having access to it. So all those end-users don't have the source, but if they want something fixed they can hire you or me or anyone else with the appropriate skills, and they can get the source for free (from the distributor who sold them the binaries), and the program can be fixed. That's the whole point. > > 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.... I condemn paragraph 2b of the GPL. As I understand it he's the one responsible for that. I find his motives laudable when it comes to writing code, but his attempts to use the force of the state to impose his morals on others are despicable. You left out an important point. The GPL (indirectly RMS, but also indirectly me, and Larry Wall, and anyone else you has put anything under the GPL) uses the force of the law to impose its controls on others *who distribute things including parts of software licensed under the GPL*. The old "so don't use" argument still applies. You continually overlook the fact that we only impose restrictions on people who have accepted our generosity, and it's not like this is the fine print on the license agreement; we make it very clear. I agree that forcefully imposing ones morals on others is dispicable. This is why I dispise those who want to prevent me from doing what I please with a piece of cloth I own (regardless of the symbols thereon), doing what I please with whom I please (with their consent) in my bedroom, etc. However, I find it perfectly acceptable to expect compliance with an agreement, be it a license, a contract, or a vow. It is made very clear that using GNU software (or any other software under the GPL) implies agreeing to the terms of the GPL. If you don't want to agree to those terms, don't use the software; but don't agree to those terms, violate them, and then complain when they are enforced. Roland McGrath (As any fool should know, I represent only myself, not the FSF, UCB, or any other organization.) -- Roland McGrath Free Software Foundation, Inc. roland@ai.mit.edu, uunet!ai.mit.edu!roland