RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [... questions ...] http://google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10109131121160.13573-10%40calcutta.flora.ca (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) [...] In order for us to move forward we need to reject the concept of ideas as property [...] You know, rather than asking questions you should have simply posted http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html and be done with it. I, for one, don't share your beliefs, obviously. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) My most recent submission to the Canadian government on copyright policy includes a reference to that document among others. No need to reference the Google version when the original is still proudly published by its author: http://www.flora.ca/copyright2003/ Hopefully people can read the full versions to get the context of your out-of-context quote. Many of the laws you appear to promote are in fact against private property(1) so quoting that I believe thinking of knowledge as property is unhealthy to the debate doesn't serve the purpose you intended. (1) Software patents and interface copyrights are used to revoke creators rights (copyright holder need not be aware of a patent in order to have information process patent infringement claims revoke their copyright - a real form of copyright theft) and traditional property rights (owners of ICT licensed to be under the control of some third party, part of the DMCA problem). I even include a Thomas Jefferson quote on my homepage and in that paper if you wanted to reference that as some sort of proof of my politics http://www.flora.ca/russell/ If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea... You know, rather than asking questions you should have simply posted http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html and be done with it. I, for one, don't share your beliefs, obviously. I just looked at the title as I had never seen this before: The dotCommunist Manifesto. I gather this is your way of ducking the questions. At least you didn't mention the name Hitler, but the technique is quite similar to try to dismiss someone by attributing qualities to them that aren't true (or aren't relevant to the conversation even if they were true). Just so you know, I support the views I have because I am a supporter of free market capitalism in a post-industrial economy. I find that all these 'ist and 'ism words never help a dialog. I don't go around saying that anyone who disagrees with me is this 'ist or that 'ist. I doubt you would like or agree with which 'ists your views that seem opposed to creators rights, private property, and free markets make you look like either *grins* The Open Source software movement exists across all parts of the left-vs-right political spectrum, and you simply cannot 'dismiss' it as being either Left-Wing or Right-Wing as it is neither and both. By the way: PCT/IPR is to creators' rights like water is to humans: too much and they drown, too little and they dehydrate. If you continue to try to over-simply things with more protection, more water and drown the software sector you may get what appears to be your wish and have IBM the only entity that survives. I will continue to do whatever I can to promote the Open Source movement (regardless of which name a particular group uses for it) to make lifeboats to protect people against that attack. --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: http://www.flora.ca/ Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
New Public License
Here is a New Public License (pun intended) that contains no contract terms, deters commercial sale or lease and the Federal Government will be happy to enforce it's conditions for you. ** NEW PUBLIC LICENSE Copyright Daniel L. Wallace This software copyright license is a conditional grant of permission(s), for the nonexclusive use, of any reward(s) of copyrights in the original author's attached software work that is permitted by copyright law. The following terms and conditions apply solely to the original exclusive copyrights of the author(s) in the attached software work. 1) Any commercial benefit or monetary gain based on the use of the nonexclusive permission(s) granted in the original author's work, in whole or in part, shall be assigned to the general fund of The United States Department of Treasury except as noted in section 2) of this license. 2) Any commercial benefit or monetary gain derived from the use of the original author's work to control the execution of computer hardware is excluded from the scope of the assignment of this license by default. 3) The original author(s) deny all liabilities deniable by law that are express or implied for damages from the use of any original copyright permission(s) granted in this license for any reason whatsoever. * The misappropriation of a monetary assignment to the The United States Department of Treasury is a federal felony prosecutable by the Attorney General of The United States. ** -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:30:14PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote: (1) Software patents and interface copyrights are used to revoke creators rights (copyright holder need not be aware of a patent in order to have information process patent infringement claims revoke their copyright - a real form of copyright theft) and traditional property rights (owners of ICT licensed to be under the control of some third party, part of the DMCA problem). I seriously doubt this is true. You may feel that the effect of the patent right revokes a copyright. But I doubt that is reflected in the law. Considering that a patent is for a significantly shorter term than a copyright you may just be temporarily impaired from making use of your work. If patents are good or not is really not clear to me. I think it really depends on the circumstance. But I don't think it's very useful to your argument to distort things. I particularly think your condescending tone is unsuited to this list and your argument. It is very likely influencing the responses you're getting. As more people have replied to you disagreeing with you you've gradually increased this tone. That's not to justify any of the responses you've gotten. Some of them are downright bad themselves. However, perhaps the more effective thing to do here is reach out to IBM and ask them why they're behaving this way. I don't think anyone on this list can really answer that question for you. Roblimo has offered to ask IBM himself. I think it's clear that some people in the Open Source community do not have the same feelings as you do about patents. Continuing this thread isn't likely to change that or get your question answered. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
