Re: [dvd-discuss] computers and networks 101

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

> 
> 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.

I don't think I misunderstand it.  I just appreciate liscences like BSD
that allow for the widest possible use (commercial or not).
> 
> 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

Actually, I do this ;) at the request of the makers, and am surprised
people actually will pay for something they can download!

> 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 agree with this last part, but unfortunatly, many corperations don't
want to actually have programmers.  They want out-of-box solutions (yet
they have macro "programmers" for excel, etc., go figure).

> 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.

Basically I think incorperating open source software into closed software
is an important thing.  (IBM's Apache, Netscape, StarOffice, Mac OS X,
etc.).

> > 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?

You take the word "right" too literally in this context.  So allow me to
rephrase "authors deserve to be paid for their work if they wish and it is
worth paying for.".

> 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.

This is true, and I think we are basically in agreement.  

> 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
>...
> authorization), we, the public, will back you up."
> 
> Patent gives certain exclusive rights to an inventor in exchange for a
>...
> 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.
>
I know all about how Copyright and Patents work.

My point was primarily:

a.) I believe in IP
b.) I believe in Copyright, and patents where appropriate.
c.) I believe in enforcing copyright and patents.

I also believe in:
a.) Copy-protection should be illegal, as it limits me from doing
activities that are within my rights.
b.) Any technology which limits fair use should be illegal, as it limits
me from doing things that are within my rights.

If I block the road, it's illegal because I am preventing others from
doing something that are allowed to do.  The argument "Fair use is
allowed, but the publishers don't have to make it easy" is BS.  They are
making it difficult on purpose, and that's quite a few magnitudes of
difference.

 -- noah silva