home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4170 talk.philosophy.misc:3136 misc.legal:21987
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny
- From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <1993Jan3.181426.18968@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Date: 3 Jan 93 23:14:24 GMT
- Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan3.181426.18968
- References: <1993Jan2.202911.28391@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1993Jan2.220350.10661@nntp.hut.fi> <1i7jkcINNbkf@life.ai.mit.edu>
- Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
- Lines: 63
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu
-
- In article <1i7jkcINNbkf@life.ai.mit.edu>
- mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin) writes:
-
- >In article <1993Jan2.220350.10661@nntp.hut.fi>
- >sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen) writes:
-
- SA:
- >>Not being a native speaker of English, I'm not aware of the multitude of
- >>meanings the word 'free' may possess. However, when 'free' refers to a
- >>_ware_, the obvious meaning - obvious to me, that is - is 'no-cost'.
- >>Free hardware (or free kitchenware) is something you don't have to pay for;
- >>similarly for free software.
-
- MC:
- > There are more than enough meanings to the English word "free" to
- >confuse any non-native speaker. And to confuse many native English
- >speakers too.
-
- This is hardly an excuse to confuse them any further.
-
- MC:
- > In this discussion we have lost the main idea of the whole business.
- >The copyright laws, especially the laws in the United States, are a
- >restriction of the freedom of the press. In the case of computer
- >software the restrictions have increased lately. The idea of copyleft is
- >an attempt to reverse this trend. The source to a computer program
- >cannot be placed in the public domain for the benefit of humanity. Anyone
- >may take the source, change it and then copyright it in his own name
- >for his own benefit. In order to publish source code for everyone to
- >use freely, it has to be published with a lot of legal restrictions. If
- >the law said that the derivative works of writing placed in the public
- >domain were also in the public domain, then we would not need anything
- >like a copyleft. But the law does not say that. If you want your code
- >and everything dervived from using it to be available without
- >restriction everywhere and forever, then you have a real problem.
- >Copylefting is one attempt to do it. It is not the perfect answer.
- >If the copyright law made better provisions for people who wanted their
- >work to be in the public domain or to be truly free, we would have a
- >better solution.
-
- This is a very nice exposition of the party line. There is but one
- gap left: what is wrong with the way Donald Knuth protects his TeX
- software? The only obligation he imposes on the recipient, is to copy
- everything verbatim, and this can be easily worked around by confining
- changes to an external file. Most importantly, unlike the FSF, Knuth
- does not proclaim himself the owner of any derivative work.
-
- Look, Michael, you are a very nice, earnest boy, but it is quite
- futile for Stallman to send his lieutenants to do a man's job of
- arguing. You guys are just not up to snuff.
-
- MC:
- > I wish the courts would find out what algorithms are and not
- >let them be copyrighted and patented.
-
- Agreed, and likewise for the "look and feel" protection.
-
- >--
- > Michael Coughlin mikc@gnu.ai.mit.edu
-
- cordially,
- mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
- "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-