"Luke Francl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> > > Pythagoras would rightly demand a fee for use of his theorem
> >
> > Mathematical theorems are not creative works -- they are statements
> > about reality. I will use Pythoagoras' theorem, and if he gives me
> > crap about licensing, then I will re
Another Free Software enthusiast jumps into the fray...
Fortunately, my comments are rather shorter. ;) I realize I know little
about this topic, so I will keep my response to questions, and the things
I know.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Sourav K. Mandal wrote:
> > Pythagoras would rightly demand a fe
"Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
>I admit I'm curious what you think about the on-going flamewar
> about IP on the list. Do you have opinions and meta-arguments about
> our discussion? Are we ignoring some obvious argument?
> Is all the fuss relevant to the list at all? If n
Dear Armchair economists,
I admit I'm curious what you think about the on-going flamewar
about IP on the list. Do you have opinions and meta-arguments about
our discussion? Are we ignoring some obvious argument?
Is all the fuss relevant to the list at all? If not, we can stop
(or continue via
To Francois-Rene:
On exclusion v. first-right:
I agree with you that exclusion and first-right are different but
not necessarily contradictory concepts. Indeed, the nature of an
apple is to be exclusive, while the nature of digital data is to be
non-exclusive. However, the basis of propert
Dear Sourav, dear Armchair Economists,
I've cut through the previous argument and went directly to the summary,
for everyone's benefit.
>: Sourav K. Mandal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Anyway, in summary:
>
> We have not resolved our dichotomy on the general concept of
> property, let alone IP. You
WORD TO OTHER LIST SUBSCRIBERS: If you don't wish to ram through
several kilobytes of argumentation, scroll to the bottom for my
quickie summary on the debate.
"Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:58:11AM -0400, Sourav K. Mandal wrote:
>
> > one ha
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:58:11AM -0400, Sourav K. Mandal wrote:
> one has the unenviable task of proving a negative
> in order to make a definition stand on its own legs.
Uh? On the contrary, one has to prove a _positive_ in
order to make a definition stand on its own legs.
That's a well-known
"Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> Let me quote what Bastiat says in "Property and Law":
> http://bastiat.org/en/property_law.html
> [The romans, and other looters after them]
> had to have recourse to a purely empirical definition of property
> -- jus u
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 05:37:30PM -0400, Sourav K. Mandal wrote:
> So, at your request, I will now dive into a wretched morass of
> conflicting ethical principles and white-hot rhetoric.
> Definition of Property (two parts):
> 1. Something that some sentient entity (individual or collective)
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
