<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.24"> <TITLE>Re: [Mandrakeot] ESR gives up on Fedora</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Simo Sorce wrote: > What if I have a revolutionary machine that can copy your bicycle and > reproduce it perfectly? > Would it be theft if I come and copy yours and than go away leaving > yours intact? > > It destroys my bicycle rental business, which is based on my unique bicycle-for-fourteen design. Go clone your own bike and leave mine alone. >> Not that I'm trying to support IP, just trying to express that your >> analogy sounds wrong. >> > > Analogies are always wrong, simply because we are not comparing apples > to apples, a bicycle is a physical object, software is not. > > Persisting in trying to treat "Intellectual Property" like traditional > forms of property on physical objects is just plain stupid. Unless it is > done on purpose, to confuse people, in which case it is criminal imo, as > it is a form of fraud. > One motivation in creating new ideas (and in writing software) is to be able to be rewarded by it. If anyone can copy my software, my movie, my song, my cookie recipe, or my bicycle design, I may just not do it, and wait for you to come up with it instead. Producing ideas, software, movies, songs, cookie recipes, and bicycle design takes considerable effort, just like acquiring physical objects. Ownership over an object means control, and so does ownership over ideas. It's okay for you or your employer to place all the results of your efforts in the public domain if you wish (and no, the GPL isn't public domain) but that is the result of your own choice. Forcing others to do so will cause others either stop stop producing ideas or to tie them into physical objects so that one can't steal them ("appliances"). -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. </BODY> </HTML>