fouts@orville (Marty Fouts) (12/16/86)
In article <8612160134.AA08428@prep.ai.mit.edu> rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU ("Richard M. Stallman") writes: >Why should the author of a program be allowed control over the >future actions of other people? For the same reasons that an artist should or because he might not be willing to produce the program without being allowed some control, such as the control specified in the General Public License for GNU Emacs, which restricts the copying, modification and reproduction of GNU Emacs. The first thing I control about my software is its existance. If I don't chose to write it, it will never exist. The second is its quality. I can hack together a kludge, or labor over a 'work of art.' The third is distribution. I can never let anyone else know of its existance, or I can broadcast it as freeware on as may networks and BBSs as I can reach. The amount of control I have varies, and I am influenced widely in making my choice. If I am hired to produce a particular piece of code, than my employer has influenced me to produce that piece of code, and I will probably decide to do so. I don't have to; I can take his money until he fires me. I have influenced future action by writing this note. (You wouldn't read it, if I hadn't written it :-) What is my right to do this? That I have done it. The system allows you to give away software, just as it allows those who wish to do sell it. If you don't want to buy their software, it also allows you not to. Don't waste time arguing about their right to do or not do what they are doing. If your theory of software development holds, then more and more people will see the advantage of it, until no one buys from these people, but instead they all come to you (and others like you) for free software, at which point there will be no advantage in software for hire. > >Why should all of us tolerate a practice where some people (software >"owners") pressure members of the public (software buyers) to promise >to refuse to cooperate with other members of the public? This >practice, where a wealthy few turn people against their neighbors so >that in the end we sign away our rights, erodes the public spirit that >is vital for us all. We tolerate the practice due to a form of hydraulic despotism. They have what we want, and state their price. we decide its worth paying and we pay it. If I could get it someplace else cheaper (in terms of restrictions, as well as cash,) I certainly would. When I can, I will. > >Our weath today comes from cooperation. The more we can cooperate, >the more wealthy we can all be. Occasionally a few will see ways to >profit from being uncooperative. Society can sustain the direct >effect of a certain amount of this. But it has a long term effect >that is even worse. When a few become rich by dividing the others, >everyone else tries to imitate them. Eventually, everyone is looking >for ways to obstruct other people and thus blackmail them. Nobody >cooperates, nothing works as it is supposed to, and we all become poorer. >This is social decay. This is how the US is going. Look at Boesky. >Look at all the office buildings and hotels being built in Boston, >and then look at the homeless people. I don't know about your wealth; but mine and that of most of the people I know came from competition. Competition in school for the grades that got us into the position to compete for the jobs which gave us the chance to compete for the promotions which give us the bucks, or compete for the consulting contracts which do the same thing. This is how the WORLD is going, has gone, will probably continue to go. Like rats in a maze, humans will compete even when cooperation leads to a bigger win for everyone. > >Even if we decide, in the name of personally liberty, to tolerate such >activity on a small scale by individuals, we can still discourage it >on large scales through industrial regulations, and keep our personal >freedom intact. We can still raise the public consciousness as to >the wrongness of hoarding information and thus inspire a general >refusal of consumers to accept it. Now more than ever, information is power. (Remember Botsky got in trouble for using hoarded information.) The people who have that power are the people who make the regulations you are talking about. They aren't going to give it up. (What do you want? We want information.) > >Right now, however, the government does exactly the opposite: it >encourages hoarding by laws that give authors undeserved power over >the public. This is suicide for society. But it has one happy >consequence: we have no conflict between personal liberty and >discouraging hoarding, because by eliminating government intervention >on the hoarders' side we can discourage hoarding and expand personal >liberty at the same time. The laws that you appear to be refering to give authors a power which they can chose to use. You have chosen to use it to protect GNU. I have chosen to use it from time to time. My employers have chosen to use it. > >If we think that some software author deserves X dollars, we are >much better off simply handing him X dollars from the treasury >and making the software free, than arranging for him to get X >dollars through a mechanism that promotes social decay and creates >a financial disincentive discouraging use of the program. Where is this X dollars going to come from? The feed back which governs which products (including software) should be developed works better the more closely the funding for the product is tied to the success (in various senses) of the product. I'm not sure who you were planning to let decide which authors should receive how much money, but in light of recent federal spending habits, I doubt that the government would do a very good job of funding products.
jonasf@kuling.UUCP (Jonas Flygare ) (12/18/86)
As I remember it: The case was about a person who had been copying programs, and selling them through ads in various magazines. He had been copying both games and utility programs. (spreadsheets/calc/etc) The programs they could prove he copied were 2 (3?) games and one calc-program. Now, what happened was that the court found the games to be works of art, since they showed some degree of originality and artistic work, but the calc-program was merely doing mechanical repetition and therefore was not a work of art. The result: It is not illegal to copy calc-programs in Sweden, but woe if You get caught copying games. There were rumors that some companies carried the case further. If anyone knows, plz keep me informed (email). Various excuses about my grammar, (no time long see?) flax@suadb.UUCP or jonasf@kuling.UUCP. Which is: Jonas Flygare Uppsala, Sweden.