Will Hill wrote: >RMS wondered what would happen to people brought up in a predominantly closed >world. He worried about the effects of billions of dollars spent telling >people that ideas are property, it's wrong to share, morals should follow >laws and that you owe more to corporate profits than you do to your neighbor. >The cumulative effects are beyond my understanding, but I have noticed a set >of symptoms and have decided to give it a name: intellectually retentive. > > Interesting analysis there. Your points are thoughtful and appreciated, I just happen to disagree with all of them.
However, your points are simply FUD. No corporation is saying that ideas are property. What they are saying, and what RMS disagrees with as well is that implementations of ideas are property and should be protected. Nobody should make money off of code I wrote unless I also make some money. I spent time writing that code and I deserve compensation for it if others are getting compensated. I can choose to either release it into the public domain, or I can attach a license to it that limits the rights of those who can see and use it. It's mine, and I wrote it! You can't "share" something that isn't yours to begin with. You didn't create Audioslave's self titled album, they did. They choose how to distribute their creation, and they choose to make you agree that you will not freely give away their creation to others. If you don't agree, don't use their creation! It's pretty simple. I don't understand the "morals following laws" snippet. This country's laws, (and you may disagree with that as well) are based on the moral fabric of Judaism's ten commandments and the English common law system. >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22intellectually+retentive%22&btnG=Search > >A quick google search turned up nothing, so I don't think anyone has bothered >to publish the idea before. It's mine bitches. ... Just kidding. > >The concept richly follow Frued's concept of anally retentive people. >Wikipedia has: > >"Sigmund Freud proposed that in a child's early years there is a >pre-occupation with the mouth. This is known as the "oral stage". >Then the child typically moves on to the "anal stage" which is characterised >by the child deriving pleasure from bowel movements. The child discovers the >pleasure which comes from the exercise of power (in this instance the power >to hold on or let go)." > > Freud was a crazy pervert. >The person who suffers from intellectual retentiveness has a terrible >neurosis. They believe that other people are out to "steal" their ideas. At >the same time, they are constantly trying to acquire control over others >people's ideas and work. When they come into contact with new ideas, they >quickly internalize them and seek to own them. Regardless of how slight a >contribution they make, they think they own it all. It is this kind of >person who drafts 10 page non disclosure agreements and non compete >contracts. Their preoccupation with control makes them petty, distrustful. >Inevitably, they get worse not better. They feel robbed whenever someone >profits from an idea they had anything to do with. > > So you are saying capitalism is a bad thing? I agree that certain companies abuse the system and are wrong, but that should be policed more closely than it is in lieu of condemning the system as a whole. Just because YOU dont' agree that implementations of ideas are real property and are worth something, doesn't mean that everyone else can or should feel the same way. If all software were free there would be no software industry at all. You can bank on it. I'd be out of a job. >All of us have these tendencies, but most of us get over it. People who have >the best ideas and contribute the most will say things about how they could >not have gotten anywere without prior art, "standing on the shoulders of >giants" and so on. Mature people will feel lucky to have an original idea >that other people appreciate at all. > > How do you suppose software developers should make a living?
