On 05/12/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, if code is speech, then free code should have the same properties as > free speech - that is someone must be able to take what I write and use it in > a way I find difficult.
"if code is speech" - it would probably have been called "speech" and not "code" I totally reject this premise and hence the whole argument falls apart for me. Software is an act of creativity (like art or poetry) and is different from the act of expression. Vijay's arguments are based upon conflating the freedom to express one's self with the freedom to create/modify/distribute a creative work. There is nothing you could say that would ever restrict someone's ability say something. The analogy is completely flawed. If we really run with Vijay's argument (which is totally absurd and hence this is going to get a bit abstract) then I could say "I love apples" and his argument would dictate that you could come along and take my words and say them again but forbid ANYONE ELSE from saying them. Is that really freedom? -- Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
