Re: [dvd-discuss] computers and networks 101

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Noah silva wrote:
> I for one, am /not/ against intelectual property.  That's one reason I
> don't love GPL, as it seems to be aimed not only towards supplying free
> software, but towards preventing related commercial software.  
> 
> As a software developer, I do think my time and code is worth money.  If I
> choose to give it away free, that's great, but I think it is something of
> value that is given away.

Well, you clearly misunderstand the GPL and I'd be glad to discuss it with
you off-list.

Your time IS worth money and nobody is asking you to give it away for
free. (Well, that's one translation of the more broad idea that your time
is yours and if someone else wants to use it for their purposes, they have
to work it out with you, which might include payment... blah blah
blah... I just want to make it clear that there are plenty of over things
besides money that represent value.)

There are lots of people out there who get paid to write GPL software.  
There are even people out there that charge money for copies of GPL
software.  The GPL does not prevent either of those things.  And no
licensing scheme in the world can prevent a person from getting paid for
their time and efforts.

As a programmer, I believe the GPL is the key to getting more and better
programs.  Industry needs software and software needs to be
developed.  Free Software is the most flexible and works best when there
are custom developers in-house improving and tailoring the software.

I had this conversation with another programmer a few weeks back (not
verbatim or anything):

Her: But I don't think it's wrong to sell software.

Me: Neither do I.

Her: But the GPL would allow the people I sell it to to give it away once
they have it.

Me: Yes.

Her: So I only get paid for implementing it ONCE.  It's really hard, with
the GPL, for me to sell the same implementation more than once.

Me: Exactly.

Her: Oh.  Right.  I guess I'm just lazy.

> I think that likewise, authors of books, movies, etc. (or whatever
> entity owns the copyright) have a right to profit from their work.

A RIGHT TO PROFIT?  I've never heard of anyone asserting such a
right.  Are you impinging their rights when you fail to buy their book and
it doesn't turn a profit?

Copyright and patent are there to encourage publication.  Without
copyright or patent, an author or inventor is more likely to keep their
work a secret.  After all, if the work is published, then someone will
twist it to be something other than it was intended or use it in a
competing service or product.

Copyright gives certain exclusive rights to an author in exchange for
publication.  "Go ahead and show us the work and we, the public, will do
these things to prevent someone from perverting it.  So you can decide
who distributes the information and if anyone tries anything funny (like
claiming authorship or distributing modified versions without
authorization), we, the public, will back you up."

Patent gives certain exclusive rights to an inventor in exchange for a
complete description of the invented process or device.  "Go ahead and
show us all how to do it and we'll make sure that only you can do it for
this whole long period of time.  That way, you don't have to be secretive
and paranoid about your competitors.  The law will cover your ass."

It is a natural tendency to keep new ideas secret.  Copyright works to
publicize that which would not otherwise be public.  Profit is a secondary
concern at best.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org