[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
From: |
Rjack |
Subject: |
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:07:48 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the
world, as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would
not be so resentful of the rest. If you resent someone else
making money, what is the solution? That no one make any money?
That is not good in the long term in a society where the money
keeps the economy strong.
The FSF does not want to be of service to the world nor do they
resent making money. They believe that software users should be
able to run, read, modify, and share that software, and have
designed a copyright license so that they and like-minded authors
can achieve that principle for software under their control.
The only resentment that I can see appears to come from people
who want to redistribute such software while denying users the
rights that the authors sought to protect. Those people deserve
and get no consideration.
Everyone is entitled to try and make money. No one is entitled to
demand that someone else help them make money.
What is under the hood is not important
The FSF believes that users of software should have the freedom
to run, read, modify, and share that software. They believe that
users should have full access to what is under the hood. They do
not like people who want to prevent such access, and they aim to
prevent those people from using the software in that way.
My view is that the history of FOSS is pretty much duplicating
something that is proprietary.
The added improvement is freedom.
"Freedom" my royal ass Hymen -- you mean the "RIGHT TO CONTROL".
GPL Section 2(b): "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to
claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;
rather, the intent is to exercise the *RIGHT TO CONTROL* the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program". (emphasis added)
You do not own other people's time. If they wish to devote
themselves to duplicating existing software, that us their
prerogative. It is not important that free software be original.
It is important that it be free, and that it encourages freedom
by raising the expense for those who would deny freedom to their
users, by forcing them to pay or to duplicate what they might
otherwise have gratis.
"Freedom" my royal ass Hymen -- you mean the "RIGHT TO CONTROL".
GPL Section 2(b): "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to
claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;
rather, the intent is to exercise the *RIGHT TO CONTROL* the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program". (emphasis added)
Stallman seems to see profits from innovation as something to
eradicate.
Stallman sees non-free software as something to eradicate.
There are a thousand contributors to Linux, but there are tens
of millions of users. That seems unbalanced to me.
Those millions of users all share in the freedom offered by the
GPL.
"Freedom" my royal ass Hyman -- you mean the "RIGHT TO CONTROL".
GPL Section 2(b): "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to
claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;
rather, the intent is to exercise the *RIGHT TO CONTROL* the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program". (emphasis added)
What is the meaning of "balance" here? There is no necessary
relationship between numbers of developers and numbers of users.
Why not stop the rhetorical bullshit about "freedom" and admit the
FSF wants to control how society treats the concept of intellectual
property? A simple Google search for RMS and Eben Moglen's writings
reveals the truth. Repeating "freedom" until your friggin' blue in
the face is not going to convince most people that GNUtians don't
want to control society's ideas concerning intellectual property.
The GPL is not about freedom Hymen -- it's all about control.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, (continued)
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, David Kastrup, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, David Kastrup, 2009/02/24
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/24
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar,
Rjack <=
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Doug Mentohl, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/24
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/24
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/24