🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <39F92280.600A277A@my-deja.com>,
  Angus McBastard <angusmcb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> seajays@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Someone posted that they couldn't see how a 'number' or
a 'bitstream'
> > could be 'property'.  They are missing the point.  It is not the
number
> > or bitstream, in the same way as you do not copyright the metal in a
> > mechanism, the paint on a picture or the notes in music.
> >
> > What you copyright are the arrangements of the cogs, the
arrangement of
> > the paint and the arrangement of the notes.  The 'bitstream' is
simply
> > the 'material' of computer programs, but you are copyrighting the
> > arrangement not the numbers.
>
> Your analogy is weak to say the least, but even using such a tool, you
> have to agree that the closed source equivalent under this frame of
> reference is selling a piece of music and then *forbidding* the
singing
> of the *song*.
>

It is not - it is exactly the same.  No one forbids you playing the
music once you have bought it.  They do forbid you from then copying
that music and making profit for yourself out of it.

> The fact is that a piece of software supplied without source code is a
> product unfit for consumption. This has been demonstrated empirically
> time and again. Further, shrink-wrapped software licencing as it
stands
> today supplies no guarantees as to fitness of use of even *object*
code
> and as such contravenes just about every consumer standard you can
think
> of.
>
> Software companies, far from suffering from piracy, have been stealing
> and profiteering from consumers for decades.
>
> > In fact, the 'numbers' argument is a red herring anyway, as
*anything*
> > can be broken down and represented by numbers if you so wished.
Your
> > own genetic code could be represented thus.  If someone came along
and
> > decided to make a clone of you, using the argument, "but its only a
> > numeric sequence", would you feel the same way?  Or would you think
> > that the particular sequence that defines you, ought to be afforded
> > some protection?
> >
>
> To address this issue, let me put it in another light for you....
>
> Do you find it acceptable for Monsato to have a patent on *your*
genetic
> sequence?
>

Ah - we agree!!  That is my point entirely.  They can't - because I
already have - I got there first, I would argue strongly that you can't
patent something that's already been 'invented'.

And still no one answers my main objection, that *regardless* of
whether it would create better software or not, you are *forcing* me to
give up my rights for your ideal software creation situation.  If I
don't want to join 'open source' I don't have to - what gives you the
right to demand that I do?

Lot's of people have had visions of 'better ways' for all sorts of
things in the past.  Just because it sounds better, is it acceptable to
waive human rights to achieve it?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.