Re: gpl licensing

[Aragorn]

On Sunday 03 December 2006 18:26, rjack stood up and addressed the masses
in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:

> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
>> You must be confusing this group with some other group.  Free
>> software isn't a economic model.  The GPL is a copyright license,
>> that protects users freedom to run, study, improve and distribute
>> software, and has nothing to do with Communism/Capitalism, free
>> software and any kind of freedom can happily coexist with both those
>> models, which ever you wish to prefer.
>>
>> Free software isn't a economic model. . . and has nothing to do with
>> Communism/Capitalism, free software and any kind of freedom can
>> happily coexist with both those models, which ever you wish to
>> prefer.
> 
> "I'm the general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and I'm trying
> to report on the revolution which is destroying intellectual property.
> Of which I am entirely in favour."
> http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/eben-moglen-dmca-and-you.html
> 
> How the hell do you get "can happily coexist" and "destroying
> intellectual property" to logically fit together?

Perhaps "happy coexistence" is the objective, but "destruction of
intellectual property" is a side-effect, cheered by many.  Have you looked
at it that way yet? ;-)

> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. . .

Probably, but not always.  Believe me, I've seen drunk people do very
strange things... ;-þ

> It's an economic model that hopes to destroy capitalistic notions of
> intellectual property.

It's not an economic model per se, since it *is* only a software license. 
What people make out of it is not necessarily what was intended, and is
certainly not what is stated wordly in the GPL.

As for intellectual property, I don't believe that there even is such a
thing.  Just because I have an idea doesn't give me the monopoly on it,
because you could have the exact same idea tomorrow without that you and I
even spoke to eachother.  So who owns the idea?  You?  Me?  Can anyone own
an idea?  And doesn't knowledge belong to everyone?  

In my opinion, that which is coined as "intellectual property" is nothing
but a scam, a false concept intended to be an excuse for exploitation.  No
economic model involved, but just something I consider social abuse.  

And of course, unbridled capitalism _is_ abuse in my view, but that still
doesn't mean that I'd be a Marxist.  It only means that I see something I
perceive as injustice, without going so far as to suggest an alternative.

It's also ironic that the "free West", the heart of capitalism, is also the
region where Christianity is the main religion, while Christianity
disapproves of capitalism, even much more so than the Judaism it springs
from.

The human species...: full of paradoxes... ;-)

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)