🚀 go-pugleaf

mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes:
>> mathew@mantis (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>> ) So why the hell did you buy DEC stuff then?  If DEC took something unfairly
>> ) and restricted it, surely the appropriate response is to tell DEC to go
>> ) to hell, NOT to try and force DEC to do things the way you think they ought
>> ) to be done.
>> 
>> That doesn't follow at all.  Will you explain your reasoning?

I'd have to agree with Mathew here. People shouldn't be forced not to
act "unfairly". They can be forced not to act "illegally". Unfairness
is deserving of a reprimand, maybe a boycott, but not force.

>There are always going to be people who don't do things the way you think
>they should be done.  There are several ways you can deal with this:
>1. Try to pass laws to make them do things your way.
>2. Let them do things their way, but don't give them any assistance.
>3. Tolerate opinions which differ to your own.  Give people the freedom
>   to make their own decisions, and rely on persuasion to entice them or 
>   educate them into doing things your way.

>The FSF approach is #1.

Depends what you mean by "The FSF approach". The copyleft is an example
of #2. Copyleft results in a denial of "assistance"; FSF code cannot be
used to "assist" an un'free' program (as a matter of record, I have my
own objects with the FSF's use of 'free'). It can be argued that the FSF
code already exists and that therefore my use of it doesn't mean they
"assisted" me; however, I think that getting to use preexisting code
counts, to some extent, as assistance.

On the other hand, the FSF gives you the same "assistance" in
supporting, for instance, Apple hardware. They are willing to have you
use the code, but opt not to give active assistance. This is, I think,
as it should be; free is most certainly not free if one must give up
one's beliefs.

On the other hand, the FSF (really LPF) approach to patent law fits well
within #1. The LPF would like to have the patent laws explicitly changed
to do things their way. Of course, this may be a wise policy. However,
AT&T could well argue that they're just following #2: the FSF can do
whatever it wants, but AT&T isn't going to assist them by allowing them
to use their discoveries. Whether software patents count as assistance
is, of course, a debatable issue.

Interestingly enough, the LPF approach to the Apple look and feel suit
is much more an example of #2. Instead of trying to lobby Congress and
the courts to make it explicit that look and feel isn't protected, the
LPF has instead said "Apple, you're welcome to pursue your views; we
won't assist you in the interim". I'm not sure why the LPF hasn't opted
to take the much more direct (and, IMHO, sensible) approach of trying to
get the law made explicitly opposed to l&f copyright, since their chosen
approach doesn't stop the next 10 guys from trying the same thing. But
at least this way they don't have to DO anything about the problem,
merely refrain FROM doing anything.

--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Coolidge   til May: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu   May: coolidge@apple.com
Of course I don't speak for the U of I, Apple, or anyone else except myself
Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.