<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.24"> <TITLE>Re: [Mandrakeot] ESR gives up on Fedora</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:09:22PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> zero cost without destroying the original, can't be subject to real >>> property. >>> >>> >> You mean I can't put a license on my code that says: you may use this, >> but if you change it and redistribute it you must also redistribute your >> changes? >> > > So called "IPR" isn't a property right, its a temporary monopoly right - if > you call them "Intellectual Monopoly Rights" it makes much more sense both > in how the work, what they do and how they need to be regulated > > Isn't property a monopoly? I have a bicycle, I'm the only one who can ride it. I may license it to you for a ride if you ask (but please, I don't want any modifications). I write a book, no one else can print it. Even if they buy a physical copy, they can't do what they like with it (like photocopy it for backup purposes, and maybe give the copies to friends). I own the monopoly on the contents of the book. >> Because that also means that I control what is done with my code. You >> make it sound like all ideas should be in the public domain. >> > > That is the natural order of things. "Information wants to be free" is pretty > sound economics. Information, by itself, wants to bitrot. You actually have to expend effort to push it around networks, explain it to people, port it to latest -git, etc. > Copyright and friends exist[ed] to motivate people to > behave in a way that benefitted society. > Exactly. If we are to hypothesize about what IPR/IMR should be like, it shouldn't be done from the point of view of right and wrong, or what information wants (who cares what it wants anyway), but from the point of view of how it benefits society. Right now that means that people need to be given control over their creation, because greed is a major motivation and control allows them to reap the rewards. The laws also need to at least seem right, otherwise people won't accept them. That's applicable to all laws as well. If people naturally behaved in a way that benefited society, we wouldn't need them. But we aren't bees, unfortunately (and the bees' work doesn't benefit the bees, it benefits the beekeeper). -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. </BODY> </HTML>