Dude, here is the thing.. Your opinion of what is information appears to be different from everyone elses.
Define information?? I think your current definition is flawed, but lets here it from your own lips. A program can manipulate information and many of them do.. the program itself however is NOT information since it conveys no import by itself, its a tool. IT would appear that you think programmers that want to protect their work should NOT use OSS as a means to do that.. after all, If I give you the binary instead of the src, its much harder to define it as info. (or better, make software that will only run on one machine and that copies will not run on other systems) That's it,, burn your mandrake disks now you silly boy, that's microsnot talk. Simple fact is.. If I break into your house and take your telly (do you have a good one??? also, what is your address???) Its stealing and If I got caught, I'd expect to be prosecuted.. why? because the real owner of that telly paid for it and it was his (or hers)... When I create something that people want.. (a basic principle of commerce the world over) it has whatever value I assign it.. It is mine, and I own it.. Just like a sculpture, a chair a boat or anything else I create. If someone buys it. They own the rights to it. the rights being that they can sell it or give it away as long as they do so to only one person or company and give up their own copy.. Just like any other possession. Those are the rights I give to someone when I sell my software as non GPL. I agree Microsnot has gone way to far in their "rights" as you never really have any accept that you can USE their software for as long as THEY deem appropriate and under their constraints.. but it IS their right to do so.. It's everyone else's right to not use Microsnot software. (which I suggest wherever possible). To say that stealing things like programs, books, movies should be a non criminal act is tell every author, singer, movie house etc that they should only expect to sell something once and have that one person share it with everyone else.. That's fine, but imagine how much things would start costing. You have not thought that though Joe, if your policy was put into effect, there would be precious little money in those fields and whole industries would fail, no movies, no books, no songs, sounds like a great world to me. (NOT) I think the way the recording industry are trying to enforce it is the wrong approach.. but I don't think anyone intelligent can deny their right to their works. Would they have spent 300 million making the titanic had it been legal to give it away or sell it for 2 bucks a pop?? you can't take ten million or more people to court.. its just not practical. But our rights need protecting so what to do?? Joe, have you written software? a book? Something else that you class as "info" and had it stolen??? I dount it from your comments here. Funny thing was I agreed with the initial points, but everything you said after that is just rubbish. The way you say it, is that the small guy should get out of business if he/she can't afford to sue those that infringe his rights?? so only companies like microsnot can stay in business... no thanks i don't want to live in that world.. Its only free to sue if you win.. and there is always the risk you won't. Multiply that by thousands and you have a case where only the recording industry, microsnot or the movie industry can afford to stay in business.. Anyway, I am not gonna get dragged into this again,, fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice shame on me. That was my last word on the subject, so go ahead Joe, convince us of your intelligence or lack thereof. My experiance from the OT list is that you are about 2mm from communism in your outlook.. So you probably think that work should be shared.. fine, if the government feed me, clothed me, paid my expenses, I'd think about it.. otherwise I have a right to expect to earn a living just like a plumber or an electrician. regards Franki -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of JoeHill Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2003 11:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] MS is at it again... On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:33:21 +0800 "Frankie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > Once again Joe, we find ourselves at the opposite end of > the spectrum.. no, no, no, you are misunderstanding me. > so you are saying that any creative works that is not a painting > or sculture or other (real world item) has no value?? not at *all*. things have the value we give them. *All* I am saying pertains to *legal* definitions, how they are and how they can be improved. No one *ever* pays attention! <whack...silly> > I actually write small programs, and most often I give them > away > for free.. but not always.. > > If I spend alot of time working on a script, i reserve the > right to > charge for it if I want to.. after all, I spend the hours > and hours > writing it. of course you do, and rightly so, but if someone downloads the app and misappropriates it, *it is not a criminal offense*, repeat after me, it is a *civil* matter of contracts and copyrights!!!!!! > Also, if 1000's of people start handing a script I wrote > that is not > free to all their mates.. > > I am just a small guy, I can't afford to do anything about > it. > So they would all get away with it.. Tough. It's the way the game is played. If you are not willing to defend your licenses and copyrights then get out of business. Sorry, I don't mean to sound heartless...and if you take someone to court for breach of contract or license, you don't pay a cent, they do. > I know you probably don't care.. because you didn't spend > days working > on it.. but having something I worked so hard on totally > devalued makes > me very angry.. I *do* care, and you have no reason to be angry at me, I am arguing a very specific point here, and people have taken it completely the wrong way. > If I give it away for free like I normally do, thats fine, > it was my > choice.. but to have you decide its "information" and just > hand it out > is wrong and since I can't afford to go after anyone for it, > they would > all get away with it if there were not laws protecting me. There *are* laws protecting you, just not criminal ones! <whack more silliness> > or should we have the right to own what we create just like > a person that creates a sculpture or paints a picture etc... ah, now there's the rub. can you "own" information? Quite clearly not. What you *can* own is the rights to use said info in your work, and if you offer that info (app) for public consumption, then you do so contractually. If someone violates that contract, fine, sue him. > Does translation to 1's and 0's make something worthless? > because the same can be done for your genitical profile.... No, but it makes it information and therefore no longer a matter for the criminal courts. Of course it has value, just don't ask the F.B. f'ckn I. to arrest people who appropriate your code! As far as "genetical" code, of course no one should own that, it is a product of nature, we only tinker here and there. Owning genetic code is ridiculous and, quite frankly, a frightening concept. -- Joehill Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: nodex.sytes.net ++++++++++++++++++++++ 11:25:17 up 10:55, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.10 Murphy was an optimist.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
