mellon@nigiri.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) (12/20/89)
Peter da Silva writes: >If you were willing to sit down and think about what I'm saying instead of >acting like a literal-minded idiot you'd see the point. Terminal programs are >computer-geek software because they're something that other computer-nerds >will look at and say "wow, you're a cool frood you" and give the guy who wrote >it an ego-boost. So he'll go back and do it again and make it better. Can't >you keep an argument straight for two messages in a row? Peter, this is an ad hominem argument. If you wish to be considered worth listening to, I strongly recommend that you reread whatever you have to say and delete *all* ad hominem arguments, no matter how annoyed you are at the other poster. My general reaction to arguments like yours (the non- ad hominem arguments, that is) is anger. Why? Because it's so pointless to be discussing this. This is a free country. Everybody is pretty much allowed to do what they want to until they start abridging the rights of others. In recent times, these rights have been more and more abridged for lesser and lesser reasons. Today, your right to own property is in jeopardy because of the government's "War on Drugs." So is your freedom of speech. Some people in the Bible Belt would like to see you forced to worship God their way. Fortunately, many others do not want this. The media is censoring itself because it's uneconomical to show unpalatable stories to the Amurkan People. In some states, you can be sentenced to ten years in jail, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, for giving your wife head. In this climate of increased government involvement in the most personal aspects of our day-to-day lives, you are arguing that we should ask the government to step in *yet again* and take away another basic freedom that's been present, de facto, since before the ratification of the Bill of Rights. I would like to ask you, Peter, just how much your freedom to make software is worth to the people of the United States. Will Bill "Stump" Watkins of Frozen Glen, North Dakota, a wheat farmer, have a better life because you wrote The Great Program? Will Winona Trumbley get over the horror of seeing her husband shot fifteen times in front of a burning cross because of the program you write? (The people mentioned in this paragraph are not intended to resemble any person, living or dead.) Peter, you and I are incredibly fortunate. In today's world, at least in developed countries, intelligence is valued much more highly than any other attribute. If you are smart, and you know how to make use of your smarts, you will never want for any of the basic necessities of life. Furthermore, you will be able to provide yourself with better therapy for any personal problems you may have than the best psychotherapist or NLP trainer in the world. If you make use of your intelligence, you will become a happy, fulfilled person. There are people in the world who do not have your advantages. A few weeks ago, I was at a friend's house, and a man knocked on the door. He walked into the house, and told us that somebody had been messing with my BMW motorcycle, which was parked out front. He then proceeded to hit us up for eight dollars to pay for a room in a transient hotel. He took off his jacket and essentially strip-searched himself to show us that he wasn't armed. He abased himself in front of us. How would you like to be in that poor man's position? How would you like it if the only thing you had of any value at all was your ability to work, and if you lived in a society where manual labour was considered low and meaningless, so that you never even had the chance to build up enough pride in yourself to be able to look someone in the eye and say, ``I'm worth something to you! Hire me!'' Let me tell you something, Peter. You are worth something. But you're not so important that you should be given a government-enforced grant to rake in money at the cost of the advancement of the state of the art. Good things can be done with software, and with computers. But the good things that get done with them aren't the amazing spreadsheets that let people count their money ten times faster than they used to. The recent stock market scares are evidence of that. The value of good software is in its ability to improve the human condition. It's in the ability to make somebody's work less frustrating. It's in the ability to simulate the total effect of a new drug on the human system. It's in the ability to examine the genetic code, and turn off the bit that says, ``this man shall be blind'', or ``this woman shall die of cancer''. It's in the ability to give that man who abased himself in my friend's living room a chance to be happy, and to feel good about himself. I don't know how to accomplish all these things, but frankly, I do know that making a few people obcenely wealthy just isn't the way. _MelloN_
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)
In article <MELLON.89Dec19215800@nigiri.pa.dec.com>, mellon@nigiri.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) writes: > Peter, this is an ad hominem argument. If you wish to be considered > worth listening to, I strongly recommend that you reread whatever you > have to say and delete *all* ad hominem arguments, no matter how > annoyed you are at the other poster. I'm not going to apologise for anything I've said here, and I'm not going to delete anything, either. The person I was responding to is either deliberately goading me, or is actually so busy making his point that he literally doesn't read what I've written. He is, in fact, acting like a literal-minded idiot... either because that's what he is or because he knows that his own argument is without support and he wishes to draw attention away from it. > My general reaction to arguments like yours (the non- ad hominem > arguments, that is) is anger. Why? Because it's so pointless to be > discussing this. Now this is strange. What argument (the non-ad-hominem ones) of mine is it that drives you to this anger? Particularly (as you go on to say) on civil-libertarian grounds. I'm at a complete loss as to what it is that you're getting upset about... > In this climate of increased government involvement in the most > personal aspects of our day-to-day lives, you are arguing that we > should ask the government to step in *yet again* and take away another > basic freedom that's been present, de facto, since before the > ratification of the Bill of Rights. No sir, it's RMS that's trying to take away our rights. Intellectual property rights are just as real as any other. > I would like to ask you, Peter, just how much your freedom to make > software is worth to the people of the United States. Will Bill > "Stump" Watkins of Frozen Glen, North Dakota, a wheat farmer, have a > better life because you wrote The Great Program? If he uses electrical power in any way, shape, or form... yes. If he uses oil or petrochemical products... yes. I'm in the SCADA business. I make a living writing software to control industrial processes. Right now my job is maintaining the development systems for some hundreds of programmers, and porting select portions of that code to the development system. I've also been involved in writing part of the control software itself. In my previous job I worked on trackside analysers: safety equipment for railroads. I've also written programs to support oil drilling, oil production, and so on. Much of this code has run on off-the-shelf equipment. It's cheaper that way: that is, it makes better use of available resources. It would probably not have been possible to make a profit on any of this software if it wasn't for copyrights, licenses, and so on. If any of our competitors could have just picked up the code, stuck it in their own boxes, and run with it... the code would never have been written. Nobody would have invested the man- years involved in writing this code. > Let me tell you something, Peter. You are worth something. But > you're not so important that you should be given a government-enforced > grant to rake in money at the cost of the advancement of the state of > the art. Funny, I can't see any such grant out there. I work hard for my money, and create a great deal of wealth for other people in the process. People like you, and like all the people you've been writing about. Because I make it possible for the economy to operate more efficiently, on fewer resources. > Good things can be done with software, and with computers. > But the good things that get done with them aren't the amazing > spreadsheets that let people count their money ten times faster than > they used to. No. That was merely an example. Something that I presumed people would be able to appreciate. I'm sure that the details of the Ensun Track Side Analyser or the Hydril Micro-master or Ferranti's Ranger system would be stunningly boring to most of the people here. > The value of good software is in its ability to improve the human > condition. It's in the ability to make somebody's work less > frustrating. It's in the ability to simulate the total effect of a > new drug on the human system. It's in the ability to examine the > genetic code, and turn off the bit that says, ``this man shall be > blind'', or ``this woman shall die of cancer''. It's in the ability > to give that man who abased himself in my friend's living room a > chance to be happy, and to feel good about himself. I don't know how > to accomplish all these things, but frankly, I do know that making a > few people obcenely wealthy just isn't the way. I know a way to accomplish these things. Use software instead of hardware, because it's more efficient a use of resources. But making software free, making software valueless, isn't going to accomplish that. Because it's going to take a lot of hard work to create that software... And the best way to make sure it gets written is by giving it a value and letting the market system work. Depending on people's good will has a devastatingly poor track record. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/21/89)
> No sir, it's RMS that's trying to take away our rights. Intellectual property > rights are just as real as any other. This is very much a sticky issue. His only legal position regarding rights is with regard to whether he should be allowed to programme things which look like something someone else has already programmed. It is just as easy to say that the people who would not allow him the freedom to do that and distribute the results are taking away his rights. He has not attempted to get any legislation enacted, merely protested the likes of look and feel suits. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/22/89)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <MELLON.89Dec19215800@nigiri.pa.dec.com>, mellon@nigiri.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) writes: > > In this climate of increased government involvement in the most > > personal aspects of our day-to-day lives, you are arguing that we > > should ask the government to step in *yet again* and take away another > > basic freedom that's been present, de facto, since before the > > ratification of the Bill of Rights. > > No sir, it's RMS that's trying to take away our rights. Intellectual property > rights are just as real as any other. Granted. However, rms is simply using the legal methods that have already been passed, supposedly to protect your "intellectual rights." I, however, do not believe this is the case. I think that patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. do *not* exist to appease a basic need for intellectual property rights. Indeed, many times daily, supposed intellecutals are ridiculed, mocked, put down, flamed, etc. by a population that increasingly feels that "intellectuals" are out of touch with reality. It is laughable to suggest that these "protections" are there to protect your intellectual property rights. Instead, they are safeguards that individuals and corporations feel will secure them profits in the future. I think that point of the GPL is to say that money can be made without resorting to the techniques currently being applied in the software industry. I think that there is an inherrent difference in selling software to a single company for $350 a pop and selling it to an entire nation of people for $350 a pop. If you write software that has limited marketablility, then i can see how you will need to charge higher prices in order to recover your costs. However, if you right a generally useful program such as a spreadsheet or a word processor, there is no need to sell it for $300 to $500 a copy. That is what upsets me. Someone (was it you peter?) suggested that businesses were the largest pirates. Perhaps if software was cheaper, this would change. > I'm in the SCADA business. I make a living writing software to control > industrial processes. Right now my job is maintaining the development > systems for some hundreds of programmers, and porting select portions of > that code to the development system. I've also been involved in writing > part of the control software itself. In my previous job I worked on trackside > analysers: safety equipment for railroads. I've also written programs to > support oil drilling, oil production, and so on. What does SCADA stand for? I am not incredibly knowledgable about different types of business acronyms. > Much of this code has run on off-the-shelf equipment. It's cheaper that way: > that is, it makes better use of available resources. It would probably not > have been possible to make a profit on any of this software if it wasn't > for copyrights, licenses, and so on. If any of our competitors could have > just picked up the code, stuck it in their own boxes, and run with it... > the code would never have been written. Nobody would have invested the man- > years involved in writing this code. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. Of course, there is quite a bit of code out there that has been written for GNU - and i don't think they have made any profits off of it yet. > > Let me tell you something, Peter. You are worth something. But > > you're not so important that you should be given a government-enforced > > grant to rake in money at the cost of the advancement of the state of > > the art. > > Funny, I can't see any such grant out there. I work hard for my money, and > create a great deal of wealth for other people in the process. People like > you, and like all the people you've been writing about. Because I make it > possible for the economy to operate more efficiently, on fewer resources. I can not say for your individual case, peter. However, i can say that Microsoft Corp. has not helped out the economy much, especially when they charge the prices that they charge. > > Good things can be done with software, and with computers. > > But the good things that get done with them aren't the amazing > > spreadsheets that let people count their money ten times faster than > > they used to. > > No. That was merely an example. Something that I presumed people would be > able to appreciate. I'm sure that the details of the Ensun Track Side > Analyser or the Hydril Micro-master or Ferranti's Ranger system would be > stunningly boring to most of the people here. Some of us don't even know what these things are. I assume that they are things that you have written or helped maintian, as per your previous statements. > > The value of good software is in its ability to improve the human > > condition. It's in the ability to make somebody's work less > > frustrating. It's in the ability to simulate the total effect of a > > new drug on the human system. It's in the ability to examine the > > genetic code, and turn off the bit that says, ``this man shall be > > blind'', or ``this woman shall die of cancer''. It's in the ability > > to give that man who abased himself in my friend's living room a > > chance to be happy, and to feel good about himself. I don't know how > > to accomplish all these things, but frankly, I do know that making a > > few people obcenely wealthy just isn't the way. > > I know a way to accomplish these things. Use software instead of hardware, > because it's more efficient a use of resources. But making software free, > making software valueless, isn't going to accomplish that. Because it's going > to take a lot of hard work to create that software... Software that is free is not valueless. Indeed, that sounds much like the old saying of "you get what you pay for" - ie. GNU code is free, (or GNUfree), so it must not be any good. I, for one, don't think that this is the case. I agree that it will take a lot of hard work to create the software. I don't agree that people will not spend the time doing it unless they are compensated monetarily (in terms of the programmer). I would gladly write software for people, if they were to provide me with an environment that it is to run under for me to keep (assuming I want said environment). I will gladly find another way to make money with which to eat, pay rent, etc. > And the best way to make sure it gets written is by giving it a value and > letting the market system work. Depending on people's good will has a > devastatingly poor track record. As you say yourself, depending on people's good will has a poor track record; thus we can not depend on people's good will (ie. giving away source code) in order to see the state of the art improve. > Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> > `-_-' > '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
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (12/22/89)
In article <UZYOsya00W0TBLNrIm@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: >I can not say for your individual case, peter. However, i can say >that Microsoft Corp. has not helped out the economy much, especially >when they charge the prices that they charge. Actually, a good argument could be made that Microsoft has helped out the economy tremendously. The IBM PC, though it's not the most powerful computer in the world, has been quite a boon to businesses (the economy). Without MS-DOS, it wouldn't have been accepted nearly so quickly, or been as easy to program.... >As you say yourself, depending on people's good will has a poor track >record; thus we can not depend on people's good will (ie. giving away >source code) in order to see the state of the art improve. Just a quick comment here...IM(V)HO, giving away source code does not contribute immensely to the "state of the art" (I assume you mean "the art of programming"?). Source code isn't nearly as useful as new algorithms, say. Not that I'm sure what the best way to advance the "state of the art" is...though I think it's probably software engineering. Oh well, enough on this tangent. :-) Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
In article <~1''Y&@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > This is very much a sticky issue. His only legal position regarding > rights is with regard to whether he should be allowed to programme > things which look like something someone else has already programmed. I agree here. Look-n-feel is bogus. > He has not attempted to get any legislation enacted, merely protested > the likes of look and feel suits. Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? I have never said that RMS has tried to get any legislation enacted. He's worked within existing legislation to achieve his ends. See also paragraph 2b of the GPL. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
> Granted. However, rms is simply using the legal methods that have > already been passed, supposedly to protect your "intellectual rights." Seems a bit hypocritical. > intellecutals are ridiculed, mocked, put down, flamed, etc. by a > population that increasingly feels that "intellectuals" are out of > touch with reality. 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. Anyway the remainder of my previous article defends intellectual property rights without playing games with words... > I think that there is an inherrent difference in selling software to a > single company for $350 a pop and selling it to an entire nation of > people for $350 a pop. 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. > What does SCADA stand for? Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. > Perhaps so. Perhaps not. Of course, there is quite a bit of code out > there that has been written for GNU - and i don't think they have made > any profits off of it yet. 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. > I can not say for your individual case, peter. However, i can say > that Microsoft Corp. has not helped out the economy much, especially > when they charge the prices that they charge. You can say the same about Frank Lorenzo or Donald Trump. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to avoid such rich sociopaths if you want to use the market system. And the market system has proven its worth. > I agree that it will take a lot of hard work to create the software. > I don't agree that people will not spend the time doing it unless they > are compensated monetarily (in terms of the programmer). You ever worked on control software? Accounting software? Don't condemn a man 'till you've walked a mile in his shoes. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/24/89)
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 <insert-your-favorite-wp-here>. 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 <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> 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
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
In article <kZYyiwe00Ugy8=4GI6@andrew.cmu.edu>, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > 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 So am I. But not the way you mean. Hold on. > - ie. they sell > those rights Not necessarily. Most people are quite capable of looking at something that's complex and valuable to them and realising that it wouldn't exist if the author wasn't compensated. The reaction I get from most people when I tell them that the Soviet Union considers Asimov a national hero but refuses to pay him royalties on sales bears that out. > - 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. > 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. > - 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... > nope. i'd be just peachy keen if they sold the software for $50 or > $5... i don't *want* the source to <insert-your-favorite-wp-here>. 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. > 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*. If someone gets $1000000 of value out of you spending a year in college, why not? Nobody *has* to buy Lotus 1-2-3 for $500. They can always buy Vip Professional for on the order of $100, or SC for the cost of a floppy. > 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. You won't see any PD realtime systems with *anyone's* name on it. Actually, come to think of it, I wrote a polled multitasker for Forth that should be usable for realtime work. Took all of 48 lines of code. > 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). I'll dig it up and let you do the other 95% of the work. > > 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. Hardly sounds like a serious effort. > > 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. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/25/89)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > So am I. But not the way you mean. Hold on. I'm not quite sure if you explained what you meant. I will reread the article, but could you please explain it again (privately, so as not to waste bandwidth). > Not necessarily. Most people are quite capable of looking at something that's > complex and valuable to them and realising that it wouldn't exist if the > author wasn't compensated. The reaction I get from most people when I tell > them that the Soviet Union considers Asimov a national hero but refuses to > pay him royalties on sales bears that out. That's what quite a few people i know say as well. Gee...our mileage is varying less and less as days go by..... > > - 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. I'm not missing a stage. Read it again - *if* they could be shown how to make the same gains *and* do without intellectual property rights - i'm not saying this is or is not possible. I'm just saying *if* it is possible.... > I presume you're talking about the war on drugs. That is the most prominent example today... > Anyone who understands the market system, too... Well, while it doesn't take an academician to understand the market system, it *does* take *some* amount of intelligence and awareness to understand the market system.... > > nope. i'd be just peachy keen if they sold the software for $50 or > > $5... i don't *want* the source to <insert-your-favorite-wp-here>. > > OK, you're a new variety. You defend the FSF without believing in the same > things they do. RMS is more interested in making the source available than > how much you charge for the binaries. Under the GPL you can sell a binary > for anything you can get for it so long as you give the source away. well, i respect rms for what he thinks...however, his opinions and mine vary on some subjects. i think that having the source available keeps people from charging outrageous prices, something i'd like to see become the norm. i think that rms' opinion is that it doesn't matter how much you charge for the binaries, because anyone who wants to will be able to get the source for *free*. of course, as both you and i have pointed out, people *do* feel that creators should be compensated - so, why don't they do it? i think that they don't because they only support creatorship rewards due to the fact that they consider themselves creators and think that they should be compensated. thus, they *don't* reward people who create things unless they are legal bound to do so. that's why we have the number of pirates that we have. that is also why some people don't want to give away their source. maybe we should have a double standard - compensation for programmers in their choice - money or source - and just charge the *#$#%%#$#* out of the individuals who would simply take and give nothing (either money or source) in compensation..... i think that it would be real cool if people gave away their source - and in return, i am willing to give away my source that includes theirs, after all, if i don't, who will? (of course, *some* people will - but why should they give it to me?) making the source available is simple (in my mind) an alternative form of the compensation that we all seem to feel programmers should recieve. You scratch my back and i'll scratch yours - and while we're at it, how about we make a bigger, better, faster wheel? To every thing ... turn, turn, turn........ > If someone gets $1000000 of value out of you spending a year in college, why > not? Nobody *has* to buy Lotus 1-2-3 for $500. They can always buy Vip > Professional for on the order of $100, or SC for the cost of a floppy. True. However, as if often the case, people are not always getting the values that they think they are getting. Some people would think that getting Lotus Quality (tm) software for $100 would be a REAL GOOD deal, ie. really a $100 value. It is concievable that i could fool someone into thinking they are getting a value that they really aren't getting - ie. a con job. Last time i checked, this is what all the madison avenue types who design adverts were up to... > You won't see any PD realtime systems with *anyone's* name on it. > > Actually, come to think of it, I wrote a polled multitasker for Forth > that should be usable for realtime work. Took all of 48 lines of code. things are looking up..... > I'll dig it up and let you do the other 95% of the work. i'll have to get a bit more knowledge - after all, it'd help if i actually *knew* how to write a realtime system that was useful for something more than running a model train..... > Hardly sounds like a serious effort. nothing i do is a serious effort. > 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. well, i disagree with you there. i think that he's just playing the game by the rules and using them to his advantage - the same thing that MicroSoft Corp., Apple Corp., Lotus Corp. IBM Corp., et. all do. Now, there are people who are in the middle - who want to get the benefits of rms' (i assume - don't know him that well) good will without paying the prices that he wants to charge... it can hurt the middle men who don't want to take a stand - but rms forces us all to take a stand on something - even if it is the GPL or paragraph 2b..... > -- > Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> > `-_-' > '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
mcgrath@hecuba.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath) (12/25/89)
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 <insert-your-favorite-wp-here>. 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
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon Watte) (12/26/89)
Iain says: >nothing i do is a serious effort. So now we know why a) you don't consider yourself among "intellectuals" (choose definition according to taste) and b) you don't understand people who want to pay $50/hr to get something done WELL (according to the payers standards). Much of what I do isn't a serious effort. My MS for instance :-) I HAVE two things though: Mac NetHack and my work as a consultant. - I spend time doing NetHack well because... I like to see people happy, I guess. Some of the people I care most about are keen NetHackers. - I spend time keeping track of hairy cross-references (in a bread & butter system) because I get paid. (Oh, I've gotten a raise... I'm at $55/hr now :-) If there was as much money in NetHack, I'd do it full time. If there was no money in either, I'd do NetHack as I do it now, do advertising (or whatever) for a living and don't do the hairy cross- references at all, making the poor guy who NEEDs those CR's very unhappy. >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 h+@nada.kth.se -- -- Stay alert ! - Trust noone ! - Keep your laser handy ! --- h+@nada.kth.se == h+@proxxi.se == Jon Watte longer .sig available on request
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/29/89)
In article <RANG.89Dec22001823@derby.cs.wisc.edu> rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >In article <UZYOsya00W0TBLNrIm@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: >>I can not say for your individual case, peter. However, i can say >>that Microsoft Corp. has not helped out the economy much, especially >>when they charge the prices that they charge. > Actually, a good argument could be made that Microsoft has helped >out the economy tremendously. The IBM PC, though it's not the most >powerful computer in the world, has been quite a boon to businesses >(the economy). Without MS-DOS, it wouldn't have been accepted nearly >so quickly, or been as easy to program.... You may be able to make such an argument, but I don't think it's likely to have a lot of validity. We don't know what would have happened if IBM had not blundered into the PC business the way they did. Micro-processor based desk-top computers were going to break into businesses anyway, IBM was not the only player at that time. Who knows, maybe the industry would have standardized around something more like a Sun, or a Mac. Or maybe growth would have been much slower with a fragmented market of incompatible machines. We just don't and can't know. Gerry Gleason
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/29/89)
iain the flippant writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> > nope. i'd be just peachy keen if they sold the software for $50 or >> > $5... i don't *want* the source to <insert-your-favorite-wp-here>. >> 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. No, he is not a new variety. I and I'm sure many others that defend RMS and his motives wrt GNU, the GPL and FSF are in substantial agreement with Jon here. >well, i respect rms for what he thinks...however, his opinions and >mine vary on some subjects. i think that having the source available >keeps people from charging outrageous prices, something i'd like to >see become the norm. i think that rms' opinion is that it doesn't >matter how much you charge for the binaries, because anyone who wants >to will be able to get the source for *free*. of course, as both you >and i have pointed out, people *do* feel that creators should be >compensated - so, why don't they do it? Actually, the real question here is not whether the creators of intellectual property *should* be compensated, but how. The way copyright and publishing of anything works ends up favoring publishing companies, not the authors of the works. However, rather than spending more time justifying this claim I will spend some on sugesting alternatives. In keeping with the idea that net bandwidth is better used to exchange/promote/develop ideas than to flame back and forth, I suggest that each of us consider what we are adding to the conversation before posting. If you like the system the way it is, then be all means keep using it, but if you think as I do that these systems are not very effective at realizing human creative potential, then let's see what we can stir up here. The way I see it, much duplication of effort is created because companies often seek to differentiate their products so that when or if they get a significant market share, their product is now locked by virtue of its non-standard features or protocals (features touted as "better" by marketeers, but often just different). In the final analysis, this approach is probably counterproductive because the company may end up with a bigger slice of a smaller pie (i.e. the market doesn't grow as much because of fragmentation). These alternatives to present practices with respect to copyright and the reward of authors of creative works are not necessarily new, but they are not typically available for most of us, and may have other problems as well. For example, universities and research institutions pay people saleries to publish works for the public domain. This practice could be expanded by public and/or private funds. Note that FSF does this (or tries to if they can get any money) to develop GNU code. I claim that it would be considerable less expensive to develop a national library of computer tools (OS's, GUI's, compilers, interpreters, CASE tools, etc.). Actually it would probably be more than less expensive, spending money this way would probably create more wealth than it consumed (as is claimed for NASA's Apollo program). If this alternative does seem a little like socialism, you can cosider how to decide which contribution is more important than another and reward that author with some type of bonus. The way I see it, private software companies (often small enough to avoid bureaucratic stupidity) often are not all that good at making the rewards commencerate with the contribution, so why shouldn't rewards be arbitrary. Maybe you could set up contests that awarded additional prizes to the best works. The best could be chosen by the votes of users of the works with correcting factors to allow for differing sizes of user populations (so a very good program essential to a narrow application is not automatically lower rated than something as widely used a a word processor). I contend that programmers like artists of all types are motivated more by the work itself than by money, so any system of bonuses would be less important than the type of work available. Also some of the dynamics of research communities would necessarily develop, i.e. people would take on projects for recognition value, looking to land future work on the important project of their choice. I didn't say, but I implied that the major finacier of this scheme would be the federal government, but this doesn't have to be the case. Perhaps a better source would be industry consortiums (ala OSF, although I consider their aim to be fragmentation rather than unifying the industry). I immagine a non-profit company whose goal is to establish and then expand a national digital network for the publishing of any type of digital material. The costs of distribution of information would be seperated from the copyright or royalty costs (note that it is not possible to say scan a book into a computer, and pay the author an appropriate royalty because it is the publisher(distributer) who controls the copyright). FSF does this by eliminating royalties, and allowing charges for distribution, thus making exclusive ownership impossible. Actually the network isn't necessary, but by establishing one and standard simple proceedures for an author to register a work and fix royalties, this might become a standard low cost (in time and money) way of publishing. Book, record, and computer software stores might be replaced by service companies that can produce a physical copy of any work on the network on the spot. If these services are widespread enough, it will no longer be important to have physical access to a research library in order to conduct research. I will repeat it again in another way. Our present practices in copyright ownership restricts the distribution of intelectual property, and probably makes the dream of open, universal hypertext/media impossible. These practices restrict the free exchange of ideas that has enabled the rapid expansion of knowledge humanity has experienced. Admittedly this expansion is a mixed bag since it has enabled humanity to exploit nature to an extent that could be deadly to our species, but we can't put the genie back, so we had better expand our knowledge fast enough to bring things under control. >> 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. >well, i disagree with you there. i think that he's just playing the >game by the rules and using them to his advantage - the same thing >that MicroSoft Corp., Apple Corp., Lotus Corp. IBM Corp., et. all do. >Now, there are people who are in the middle - who want to get the >benefits of rms' (i assume - don't know him that well) good will >without paying the prices that he wants to charge... it can hurt the >middle men who don't want to take a stand - but rms forces us all to >take a stand on something - even if it is the GPL or paragraph 2b..... I have to agree with iain here. The sellers of commercial software are more restrictive than GPL. You may quible that GPL is more restrictive wrt included libraries, but that's not the point. These for-profit companies could legally include this restriction if they felt it was in their interest. They probably don't because nobody will use their libraries if they do, and RMS may find the same to be true of GNUware. People will use GNUware and find another source for a library. Admittedly this undermines RMS' intention to remove duplication of effort, and for this reason I think he should change this, but you still don't have any reason to complain about it being unfair, unethical or whatever. >> Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> >iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | Gerry Gleason
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (12/29/89)
>> 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. Why are his attempts to use the force of the state to impose his morals on others any more dispicable than your attempts to do the same? <mike -- Here's a song about absolutely nothing. Mike Meyer It's not about me, not about anyone else, mwm@berkeley.edu Not about love, not about being young. ucbvax!mwm Not about anything else, either. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/30/89)
> Why are his attempts to use the force of the state to impose his > morals on others any more dispicable than your attempts to do the > same? My attempts? Cite examples. Make sure they apply to me, and they're really attempts to impose my morals rather than gain just compensation for my work. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Under Construction) Meyer) (12/30/89)
>> > Why are his attempts to use the force of the state to impose his >> > morals on others any more dispicable than your attempts to do the >> > same? >> >> My attempts? Cite examples. Make sure they apply to me, and they're >> really attempts to impose my morals rather than gain just compensation >> for my work. Anytime you distribute software with _any_ restrictions on use or distribution, you're "using the force of the state to impose your morals". Almost all the stuff I've seen from you for the Amiga qualifies as such. Why you're using copyright laws for such restrictions is immaterial. Likewise, whether you or I consider those restrictions reasonable is also immaterial. What matters is that you're using the force of the state to cause others to behave as you wish, whether they consider it moral or not. I repeat - why is rms doing this any more despicable than your doing this? <mike -- It's been a hard day's night, Mike Meyer And I been working like a dog. mwm@berkeley.edu It's been a hard day's night, ucbvax!mwm I should be sleeping like a log. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/31/89)
> Anytime you distribute software with _any_ restrictions on use or > distribution, you're "using the force of the state to impose your > morals". Almost all the stuff I've seen from you for the Amiga > qualifies as such. Sure I'm using the force of the state. I accept that hired violence is violence none the less. BUT where do my morals come into it? All my copyright notices explicitly state that you can use my stuff for anything you want, so long as you give me credit for it. The two exceptions are Browser, which is shareware, and Tracers, which is commercial. None of this has anything to do with my morality or my attitudes towards the free market. The MOST restrictive copyright I've come up with doesn't restrict anyone from using my stuff however I wish. Come on. Cite examples. Show me where I'm trying to impose my morals on anyone. > I repeat - why is rms doing this any more despicable than your doing > this? I repeat - where am I doing this? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (01/03/90)
>> Come on. Cite examples. Show me where I'm trying to impose my morals on >> anyone. From the very same posting: >> All my copyright notices explicitly state that you can use my stuff >> for anything you want, so long as you give me credit for it. You're requiring that someone give you credit for your work. That sure looks like you're imposing your morals (in this case, that creators recieve credit for their work) on others. >> The two exceptions are Browser, which is shareware, and Tracers, which >> is commercial. And here's two other cases; one in which you require that they not give their tools to their friends. > I repeat - why is rms doing this any more despicable than your doing > this? You've provided examples. Want to answer the question? <mike -- When all our dreams lay deformed and dead Mike Meyer We'll be two radioactive dancers mwm@berkeley.edu Spinning in different directions ucbvax!mwm And my love for you will be reduced to powder mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/04/90)
In article <MWM.90Jan2130339@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) writes: > >> Come on. Cite examples. Show me where I'm trying to impose my morals on > >> anyone. > You're requiring that someone give you credit for your work. That sure > looks like you're imposing your morals (in this case, that creators > recieve credit for their work) on others. No, it just means I'm feeding my ego. I like to hear back from people that my stuff is being used and appreciated. You cut off my message again (for the second time running). The very next sentence makes this distinction. If you don't understand or aren't willing to consider this a distinction, then why don't you just drop it instead of accusing me of using the law to force my sense of morality on other people. > And here's two other cases; one in which you require that they not > give their tools to their friends. Again, it's pure and simple self-interest. Morality has nothing to do with it. > You've provided examples. Want to answer the question? Give me some real examples or drop the question. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (01/05/90)
>> You cut off my message again (for the second time running). The very next >> sentence makes this distinction. If you don't understand or aren't willing >> to consider this a distinction, then why don't you just drop it instead of >> accusing me of using the law to force my sense of morality on other people. I cut your message off because your distinction is immaterial. You _are_ using the law to force your sense of morality on other people. To you it may just be ego-boosting or just compensation. To the person who's got the software, it's a morality issue. In this case, their views count, not yours. For instance: >> > And here's two other cases; one in which you require that they not >> > give their tools to their friends. >> >> Again, it's pure and simple self-interest. Morality has nothing to do >> with it. Oh? You don't consider it immoral to give away software against the authers wishes? In that case, I can understand why you'd complain about having someones morals forced on you, as you otherwise don't have any in this area. If you do consider it immoral to give away software against the authors wishesm, then the copyright laws are being used to force your morals on others. That you're doing it out of self-interest is immaterial. Of course, you could insist that it's the givers viewpoint that matters, then you can consider that RMS isn't forcing his moral views on anyone, he's doing this out of simple self-interest. He's extracting just compensation in the form of more software that he can use without have to worry about licensing agreements, etc. That everybody else gets the same benefits from his work is gravy. From my viewpoint, you're doing the same thing RMS is doing, except that he benefits all of society instead of just himself. I still want to know why what you're doing is "self-interest", and what he's doing is "despicable" <mike -- And then I saw her... Mike Meyer She was a bright red '64 GTO mwm@berkeley.edu With fins and gills like some giant piranha fish, ucbvax!mwm Some obscene phallic symbol on wheels. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
dsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (01/05/90)
In article <4877@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Again, [my reasons for using copyright are] pure and simple > self-interest. Morality has nothing to do with it. Okay, then, so you're saying it's alright for you to impose your requirements for self-satisfaction, which involve boosting your ego and fattening your wallet, but it's not OK for RMS to impose his requirements for self-satisfaction, which involve morality? Sheesh, now it's clear. It's OK to be greedy, and altruism is evil. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (01/05/90)
>>>>> On 4 Jan 90 19:50:22 GMT, dsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) said:
Dave> Sheesh, now it's clear. It's OK to be greedy, and altruism is evil.
Bingo!
--
Rodney