The Penguin Ping.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Posted on 10/10/2002 5:01:44 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Bush2000:
Oh BS! Total popycock. Microsoft is cool! yada yada yada...blah blah blah...
Preempting the Linux basher. :-)
I was curious what was meant by the "ethical" reasons. It sounds so pretentious... So I followed the provided link to: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html On this page, the GNU explanation can be found at "A primer on the ethics of 'Intellectual property'", at the provided link: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html
I'll quote directly...
Copyright and Patent laws are unethical because they can be used to abridge the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information.
Here's some more...
The abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information (as defined in USC 17) is unethical for three main reasons, all taken in conjunction with each other:
* Arbitrary copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally does not cause harm to anyone. When someone makes a copy of a certain piece of information that is published, there is no information lost. The person from which the information is copied (say an author or an inventor) retains the information in exactly the same state. What has happened is that two copies of the same piece of published information arise. What is done with the second copy does not affect what is done with the first copy, ceterus paribus.
No harm? What about lost income from stealing software? I wrote it, I should be compensated if I so desire.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally causes harm to the progress of the sciences and the arts. One instance is in the case of software. Suppose I publish a program that does rational drug design (makes it easier to find drugs for diseases) and is generally found useful by individuals all over. Suppose you're able to modify the program and make it even more better at rational drug design and distribute it. I can, under current Copyright and Patent law, for whatever reasons I wish, control you and prevent you from doing this even though your modification would be beneficial to everyone. This causes a lot of harm to people, even though the modification itself does not cause harm to me.
Nope. If I write a proprietary medical program which helps cure cancer, it hurts mankind if others can steal it from me . If I wasn't going to get paid, then I would not have written the program. That doesn't help mankind.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information also abridges your freedom of speech, expression, and your freedom to think freely. As in the above situation, suppose I publish a program for drug design, and claim all "intellectual property rights" associated with the creation. You can't even begin to do research (legally) on the program without licensing it from me, i.e., your freedom to even think about what the program does and improve its workings is abridged. Further, you're forbidden from repeating the program (and its improvements) to someone else. In other words, you're forbidden from telling people what your thoughts are, even if they are so uncreative as to be identical to what you've heard or seen before. What this ultimately boils down to is that your freedom to obtain knowledge, store and process that knowledge, and spread that knowledge as you see fit, is abridged. Thus people are constantly forced to re-invent the wheel rather than copy and use or modify existing information.
No such constraints exist in real life. I can't think of a single piece of software in existence which doesn't have at least one competitor. So this "monopolized information" theory doesn't hold.
On a previous thread, I heard many OSS proponents say that they are involved in both OSS and closed-source projects. Well, it doesn't sound like that fits into this guy's idea of "ethical".
ShadowAce, I'm glad that you posted the article. I'm sure you know that I'm not an OSS basher. But, if software was a religion, I go to a different church than the GNU guys. To say the least, it's enlightening to surf the gnu.org site and see what the GNU guys really stand for.
As with most things in life, the devil is in the details.. some of which you conveniently fail to mention.
These articles give other people's philosophical opinions in support of free software, or related issues, and don't speak for the GNU project -- but we more or less agree with them.
If I write a proprietary medical program which helps cure cancer, it hurts mankind if others can steal it from me . If I wasn't going to get paid, then I would not have written the program.
So you, in your selfishness, would deprive mankind of a cancer cure simply because you won't get your price. And not every cancer patient in the world is going to be able to pay what you ask anyway. No volunteer spirit here. "If I don't get paid, I'm taking my ball and going home. Screw you." Ethical?
This is a nice attempt at guilt by association. Ethical or not?
And just how does it help mankind if 70% of all cancer patients die because they can't afford access to your software? If you want to argue natural selection here I might agree on many points, but I doubt that's what you're arguing here. If the government nationalized a copy for itself to use to treat said patients then it wouldn't cost you a dime. The government gave you the right to sue and prosecute people who copy your software, it has no obligation to respect the copyright it gave you.
TechJunkYard, I looked on the linked philosophy page for "ethics". That was the article that I found. GNU put the link there, and they did say "we more or less agree with them." I'm not trying to distort, or put words in their mouths. They endorsed this guy's philosophy.
The quotes you use are written by someone advocating Free Music as a context, not Free Software.
I'm against music stealing too. I support the intellectual property rights of musicians, authors, etc. But the author used a software example in his article, so I used it.
So you, in your selfishness, would deprive mankind of a cancer cure simply because you won't get your price.
You've summarized my feelings quite well. Yes. I would get my price. I paid for the R&D. I should reap the benefits. Would I deprive mankind of the cure? Of course not. But I would seek the point where the supply and demand curves intersect... I'd get a good price.
Your argument sounds a lot like... "To each according to his needs... from each according to his ability to produce." Now where have I heard that before? As dirty as it seems sometimes, capitalism is the most ethical system of production and distribution that I've ever seen.
I'm glad that the examples used are medical. The US has the most expensive drugs in the world, but our drugs are also the most effective in the world. All the great advances come from US drug companies. Why? Because, if all of their R&D pays off, then they get rich. It's that simple.
Look at the socialist European drug companies... The best they can add to society is the morning-after abortion pill.
Let's apply this argument to Microsoft software. Oh yeah, it doesn't apply... It seems that Microsoft manages to charge a price for their software, and yet no one seems to be deprived of the "benefits" of their software. Here's the proof: They are a convicted monopoly.
Charging market prices for intellectual property is not unethical. If people had to give their intellectual property away for free, then it wouldn't be long before we were intellectually bankrupt. Everyone would just stay at home and watch Jerry Springer.
Have you ever donated a pint to the Red Cross? Or do you insist on getting paid there too?
GNU software is crap. Stallman is an idiot and a hypocrite. And yes, I do have a personal grudge against him.
Only in Stallman's diseased brain is "Linux" an abbreviation. "GNU/Linux" is Stallman's unbridled ego trying to take over the work someone else did that he could not. For all his ranting about the GPL and FSF copyright assignment, read the source code of the Herd kernel. Yes, that's right, it's copyright to CMU. Hypocrite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.