On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:17, you wrote:
This seems to me a complete non-sequitur. We don't know what the OP's needs are beyond those he stated. Namely, the ability to protect access to a PDF document..
Point taken. However, the answer to his question is then obvious and trivial (as another pointed out) use M$ windoze and a commercial copy of Adobe. End of story.
Surely you can accept that sometimes there is a need to publish documents and still restrict their distribution (or access to them, failing the ability to restrict the dissemination of the bits).
No. I have completely bought into the concept that intellectual property does not exist. No one develops anything in a vacuum. All new information is derived from existing knowledge, and no information is useful to society unless it is "free" in the sense of "freedom," not price.
Furthermore, a document is not a program. The arguments that Stallman puts forth w.r.t. to software do not necessarily apply to every imaginable published work.
You obviously did not read his book. The concepts most certainly can apply to almost any imagineable document... most of Stallman's stuff has the following: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved"
Lastly, I doubt the OP believes or wishes that you "need" his document.
True enough... I didn't mean to imply otherwise... my comment was a general comment referring to, well, as a for instance, the NMEA codes. Do a google search sometime for the NMEA owners site and try to swallow the load of tripe they are feeding everyone. The NMEA codes are "protected" even though everyone (gps, autopilots, plotters, etc) need to use them. But, we must pay the NMEA hundreds of dollars for a "copy" of their protected codes... even though they are freely available on the NET from various sources.... The NMEA maintains that the NET versions are poor and out of date... and that is also a load of tripe. Presumeably (I'm never going to ask them for it) their codes come in some form of protected PDF document that will not print... can not be copied... explodes after being read once... etc.... You need to read Stallman's book. He thoroughly and thoughtfully details the concepts as they apply to all sorts of material... not just programs. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
On Sunday 15 October 2006 20:48, M Harris wrote:
On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:17, you wrote:
This seems to me a complete non-sequitur. We don't know what the OP's needs are beyond those he stated. Namely, the ability to protect access to a PDF document..
Point taken. However, the answer to his question is then obvious and trivial (as another pointed out) use M$ windoze and a commercial copy of Adobe. End of story.
Hardly. It's not reasonable to expect someone with a valid publishing need that includes some sort of access control to go to a commercial OS or commercial software to fulfill those needs.
Surely you can accept that sometimes there is a need to publish documents and still restrict their distribution (or access to them, failing the ability to restrict the dissemination of the bits).
No. I have completely bought into the concept that intellectual property does not exist. No one develops anything in a vacuum. All new information is derived from existing knowledge, and no information is useful to society unless it is "free" in the sense of "freedom," not price.
You're assuming that this is about "intellectual property." Or do you believe no one has the right to keep secrets at all and to share them with only those people they choose to? Would you have all cryptographic technologies eradicated?
Furthermore, a document is not a program. The arguments that Stallman puts forth w.r.t. to software do not necessarily apply to every imaginable published work.
You obviously did not read his book. The concepts most certainly can apply to almost any imagineable document... most of Stallman's stuff has the following: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved"
No, I didn't read his book. And it cannot be assumed that I'd agree with its thesis if I did. If Stallman wants to publish something under those terms, that's certainly his right. But it's arrogant and foolish to believe that every document, every program, indeed every act of creation should be devoid of any notion of ownership or propriety, which seems to be your assertion.
Lastly, I doubt the OP believes or wishes that you "need" his document.
True enough... I didn't mean to imply otherwise... my comment was a general comment referring to, well, as a for instance, the NMEA codes. ...
I don't know what NMEA stands for.
M Harris <><
Randall Schulz
On Sunday 15 October 2006 20:58, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Point taken. However, the answer to his question is then obvious and trivial (as another pointed out) use M$ windoze and a commercial copy of Adobe. End of story.
Hardly. It's not reasonable to expect someone with a valid publishing need that includes some sort of access control to go to a commercial OS or commercial software to fulfill those needs.
Why is that not reasonable? He is clearly trying to protect his material, probably to protect a commercial interest in the material. Why should a commercial need not be met with commercial software? (Not that the need might not be met with FOSS tools.) Sort of reminds me of the MySQL license. Free for use on Linux, but requires a paid license on Windows. Not totally unreasonable. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John, On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:08, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 15 October 2006 20:58, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Point taken. However, the answer to his question is then obvious and trivial (as another pointed out) use M$ windoze and a commercial copy of Adobe. End of story.
Hardly. It's not reasonable to expect someone with a valid publishing need that includes some sort of access control to go to a commercial OS or commercial software to fulfill those needs.
Why is that not reasonable?
Why _is_ it reasonable? Are you suggesting that if someone is carrying out commercial, profit-generating activities they should not use free (open or otherwise) software? Do you have any idea how much OSS software Amazon uses? Boatloads. Do you think that's inappropriate? Immoral? Illegal? That is _should_ be illegal?
He is clearly trying to protect his material, probably to protect a commercial interest in the material. Why should a commercial need not be met with commercial software?
That inference is not supported by what the OP asked. For all we know, he wants to plan a surprise party for his spouse. But the examples suggested by M. Fiori (in a separate thread) are very serious (and non-commercial) reasons to be able to control access to information. Information may want to be free, but people have very reasonable and legitimate reasons to want to control and limit access to some of that information. I continue to assert that software and materials produced with that software are not always to be considered equivalent in their need to be protected.
...
Randall Schulz
On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:48, M Harris wrote:
No. I have completely bought into the concept that intellectual property does not exist. No one develops anything in a vacuum. All new information is derived from existing knowledge, and no information is useful to society unless it is "free" in the sense of "freedom," not price.
Well, you obviously don't write stuff for a living. Look, copyright law exists for a reason, and that is to protect the author's vested interest in his work. In principle it is very much like a patent. None of your high tech toys would exist if there were no way to insure that the cost of developing said toys could be recovered by the developers. Open source is a great concept - for some things - but it cannot support all aspects of business. Human nature won't allow it. You can bet your last nickel that I believe very strongly that if I write something, if I create something, then I certainly retain the rights to that 'intellectual property'. If I choose to give it away for free; i.e., make it available for all to see, then that is my choice. If I don't, then I expect that my rights should be respected and anyone that then takes it from me without my permission is engaged in theft. Pure and simple. For example, if Intel opened their chip development to the world, just how long would they stay in business? The Chinese and AMD would cut off a very sensitive part of their anatomy and hand it to them on a silver platter. "Intellectual property" is a very real, very necessary part of the brave new world that we inhabit. Without it, innovation and creativity withers. I guess that I just don't like communists and the points that I hear you make smack of that ilk. Fred Linux guru
On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:48, M Harris wrote:
No. I have completely bought into the concept that intellectual property does not exist. No one develops anything in a vacuum. All new information is derived from existing knowledge,
So the basis of M Harris's argument is that all inventions are based on some prior inventions, and therefore intellectual property can not exist. M Harris forgets that society as a whole established and encoded into law that there is such a thing as intellectual property and that it can be bought, sold, traded for a time certain, after which it becomes public property. Therefore it matters not a whit what M. Harris has "bought into". His views are simply at odds with established law, and historical practices since time immemorial. But even more basic than just being at odds with the entire human race, (as if that were not enough), his argument is simply wrong on its face. The fact the prior inventions are incorporated into new inventions (after the expiration of patents, etc.) has nothing at all to do with either the rights of the inventor or the value of his invention. Both of these (rights and value) are recognized by society, and, as a reward, the inventor is given a time certain in which to bring them to market, and after which, anyone else may do so at will. The inventions upon which any current invention is based were also given this protection, even though they in turn depended on prior inventions. And so on, all the way from the automobile back to the invention of the wheel. The only thing that has changed is that the whole process has become more civilized over the last 300 years. One may argue it has gone too far, and I would agree, but that is but a temporal imbalance in the laws, which the market will undo one way or another over time. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2006-10-16 at 00:40 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
The inventions upon which any current invention is based were also given this protection, even though they in turn depended on prior inventions. And so on, all the way from the automobile back to the invention of the wheel.
The only thing that has changed is that the whole process has become more civilized over the last 300 years.
One may argue it has gone too far, and I would agree, but that is but a temporal imbalance in the laws, which the market will undo one way or another over time.
[OT?] The law can be abused, and it is. If I'm not mistaken, the period protected by patent has been increased (in the US?), so that it takes too long for inventions to become public property. This is specially so for software. Things like clicking can be patented. And finally the patent law is so complex that you need a host of lawyers to get and enforce a patent. I guess that's about your meaning with «it has gone too far» :-? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFM1IxtTMYHG2NR9URAlm7AJ9/7fSB61GT3HjR7873rHIg5JuSKgCdEq3e JUSIyjMaVugwP7fiaKEhwyY= =MVdo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:18 -0500, Stevens wrote:
If I choose to give it away for free; i.e., make it available for all to see, then that is my choice.
That's an invalid use of "i.e.". Even if you make it available, you still retain your copyright and no one is allowed to copy it except on terms you decide. This is actually the legal basis for the GPL, so it's not against open source. You have no rights to open source code except as defined in the license. Similarly, you can make things available to read, whether it be source code or anything else, and this in itself will not yield your copyright. Just because you can read the New York Times without having to go through some sort of copy protection scheme, do you think that means you can do whatever you want with the material? But as far as anything I have on my computer is concerned - if I can't make a backup of it, it's useless to me, and to any company that is serious about data security
For example, if Intel opened their chip development to the world, just how long would they stay in business? The Chinese and AMD would cut off a very sensitive part of their anatomy and hand it to them on a silver platter. "Intellectual property" is a very real, very necessary part of the brave new world that we inhabit. Without it, innovation and creativity withers.
Um, what? "Intel clones" have been around for a few decades now, where have you been? As far as I can see, Intel is still in business. Also, you might want to discuss this with Sun, who have always made their SPARC designs available, even when they were highly successful. Lately even under a very permissive license
Well, you obviously don't write stuff for a living. Look, copyright law exists for a reason, and that is to protect the author's vested interest in his work. In principle it is very much like a patent. Wrong on all three points. 1) I do write for my living. 2) Copyright law exists to protect publishers. 3) Copyrights and Patents are *completely* different things... Patents protect *ideas* whereas copyrights protect published works. Stallman is absolutely correct when he asserts that software and software documentation should not be patentable (as is the case in some of Europe). Stallman details the evils of software patents in the U.S. and he also details the complex differences between copyright law and patent law... very interesting reading. There is coming a time when copyright will restrict readers to the point where e-books will only be allowed to be read once. Books will not be allowed to be resold. Books will not be allowed to be loaned. Isn't it funny that Stallman has given me the right to copy his book in any medium I want.... and yet, I *purchased* a copy of his book from his site? Copyleft doesn't mean you can't make a living writing... it just means
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:18, Stevens wrote: that the material is "free" (as in freedom) and that the reader and the community are free to use and *add* to the knowledge base from the use of *free* source materials. Copyright law goes back to the printing press and the central distribution of printed materials.... and was *never* intended to prevent the reader from "copying" the book for his own use with say a pencil. Today copyright law has become an evil monster having far more scope and power in the computer age than it was ever intended to have in the printing press days. (Stallman's discussion of this point is powerfull... read it) What irked me from the original post was that an individual wants to use a *free* and *open* system and set of tools to close and lock down and restrict.... just seems a little hypocritical. If you want to lock down and restrict than use a locked down and restricted (say expensive) commercial application and join their closed and strangled society. Otherwise, if you believe in freedom then use free and open systems and *encourage* freedom. Freely add to the knowledge base and freely encourage others to join the freedom movement and the betterment of a free society. It is possible to make a living writing *open* sources... of all kinds. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
M, On Monday 16 October 2006 17:42, M Harris wrote:
What irked me from the original post was that an individual wants to use a *free* and *open* system and set of tools to close and lock down and restrict.... just seems a little hypocritical.
You persist in assumptions about the nature of the information this person wants to protect. That's unwarranted and invalid. How do you know it's not simply a matter of protecting some kind of personal information? You never answered my question about whether you think no one is entitled to any privacy or secrecy of any sort or if you wish to eradicate and prohibit all cryptography. Do you? Do you have a hard-line, absolute philosophical position against secrets and private information? Is _your_ life a 100% open book?
...
Randall Schulz
On Monday 16 October 2006 20:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:
You never answered my question about whether you think no one is entitled to any privacy or secrecy of any sort or if you wish to eradicate and prohibit all cryptography. Do you?
Cryptography is a joke. It is currently unlawful in the United States to send an encrypted message out of the country using a scheme which cannot be broken by the federal government (CIA, NSA, etc). Since encrypted messages could be bounced around the internet globe (without user control) it is therefore unlawful to send an encrypted message (anywhere) which cannot be broken by the federal government. Ergo... there is no encryption and there is really no privacy... words to the wise. I have invented several cryptographic schemes which are effective (call it a hobby) and are quite, well, secret. I cannot use them lawfully. So what is the point... nothing is really *lawfully* secret--- not in the U.S. anyway. If you want to keep a secret, don't publish it. That was not my point in previous posts. The point was more philosophical... is protectionism necessary and should open systems be used to produce closed sources? Should *freedom* encouraging patriots help others use open systems to produce closed sources?
Do you have a hard-line, absolute philosophical position against secrets and private information? Is _your_ life a 100% open book?
My philosophical position is to encourage a free and open society. On the other hand, if you must produce close sources for some noble or personal reason, then don't put them in an electronic media. Self publish them and place them in a folder marked "Confidential Restricted," or other such ridiculous red stamp and hand deliver it to eyes with a "need to know". My hard-line position is to encourage freedom... if you can get it done in an open and free (as in freedom) manner, then great--- otherwise, think it over one more time. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
On Monday 16 October 2006 19:09, M Harris wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 20:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:
You never answered my question about whether you think no one is entitled to any privacy or secrecy of any sort or if you wish to eradicate and prohibit all cryptography. Do you?
Cryptography is a joke.
You, sir, are a joke.
On Monday 16 October 2006 19:35, M Harris wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 21:19, Randall R Schulz wrote:
You, sir, are a joke.
Who was it that said, "When they resort to name calling be assured that you have won the argument"?
No one said that. It's not even grammatical. But your statement and others you've made earlier prove you are incapable of a meaningful argument on this topic and are indeed mere farce.
-- Kind regards,
Doubtful.
M Harris <><
On Monday 16 October 2006 22:09, M Harris wrote:
My hard-line position is to encourage freedom... if you can get it done in an open and free (as in freedom) manner, then great--- otherwise, think it over one more time.
I agree. Both copyright and patents are totally out of hand these days. Our whole society is going to grind to a halt if this keeps up. Richard Stallman was mentioned earlier, and I'd like to encourage list members to listen to this interview: http://linuxuser.thepodcastnetwork.com/2005/08/29/the-gnulinux-user-show-13/ Bryan *************************************** Powered by Kubuntu Linux 6.06 KDE 3.5.2 KMail 1.9.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ***************************************
M Harris wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:18, Stevens wrote:
Well, you obviously don't write stuff for a living. Look, copyright law exists for a reason, and that is to protect the author's vested interest in his work. In principle it is very much like a patent.
Wrong on all three points. 1) I do write for my living. 2) Copyright law exists to protect publishers. 3) Copyrights and Patents are *completely* different things... Patents protect *ideas* whereas copyrights protect published works. Stallman is absolutely correct when he asserts that software and software documentation should not be patentable (as is the case in some of Europe). Stallman details the evils of software patents in the U.S. and he also details the complex differences between copyright law and patent law... very interesting reading. There is coming a time when copyright will restrict readers to the point where e-books will only be allowed to be read once. Books will not be allowed to be resold. Books will not be allowed to be loaned. Isn't it funny that Stallman has given me the right to copy his book in any medium I want.... and yet, I *purchased* a copy of his book from his site? Copyleft doesn't mean you can't make a living writing... it just means that the material is "free" (as in freedom) and that the reader and the community are free to use and *add* to the knowledge base from the use of *free* source materials. Copyright law goes back to the printing press and the central distribution of printed materials.... and was *never* intended to prevent the reader from "copying" the book for his own use with say a pencil. Today copyright law has become an evil monster having far more scope and power in the computer age than it was ever intended to have in the printing press days. (Stallman's discussion of this point is powerfull... read it) What irked me from the original post was that an individual wants to use a *free* and *open* system and set of tools to close and lock down and restrict.... just seems a little hypocritical. If you want to lock down and restrict than use a locked down and restricted (say expensive) commercial application and join their closed and strangled society. Otherwise, if you believe in freedom then use free and open systems and *encourage* freedom. Freely add to the knowledge base and freely encourage others to join the freedom movement and the betterment of a free society. It is possible to make a living writing *open* sources... of all kinds.
Do you still live on that planet earth? I do not believe that people pay for something, what they get for free as well, here free as in copied !!!! To write something cost time and money and must be somehow rewarded. I try to protect myself. If you do not need to, good for you! To use free tools and do something with it is a COMPLETE different story from that you described. I do not give away (free) pdf tools, I want to sell INFORMATION, and that is packed into a free format (free as in for everybody easy available). To read a pdf file you still need a device, which is also not free, but easy available! To live with open source is still more a dream than reality! Somewhere the money must come from. Ok, you get a piece of bad documented (if at all) software and a hint that you get consultant if you pay for, with some goodies. Otherwise, Novell could not make SuSE for free and still survive! Please don't get my words wrong, I don't want to say SuSE documentation is bad! The copy right is a nice feature! However, in the reality of life it is a small part. Another example is MP3, the players are free, but the contents is still copy protected and needs to be so, otherwise it will be copied and the artists would not get anything! http://www.garageband.com has good music, which is free! Here are often the free songs are an advertisement to buy the CD from them. bye Ronald Wiplinger
On Monday 16 October 2006 19:42, M Harris wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:18, Stevens wrote:
Well, you obviously don't write stuff for a living. Look, copyright law exists for a reason, and that is to protect the author's vested interest in his work. In principle it is very much like a patent.
Wrong on all three points. 1) I do write for my living. 2) Copyright law exists to protect publishers. 3) Copyrights and Patents are *completely* different things...
Then you must not write anything worth stealing. Also, try to convince the Harry Potter author that Chinese piracy is only affecting her publisher. And third, I didn't say "copyright = patent", I said it was very much like one. Look, discussing this issue with you and expecting a reasoned response is like you trying to teach a pig to sing: it frustrates you and pisses off the pig. As another on the list suggested, let this thread die. Fred
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 01:42, M Harris wrote:
Patents protect *ideas*
- no, they protect inventions. You can't patent an idea by itself. You must also be able to demonstrate a feasible implementation of that idea. That's a very big and important difference. Coupled with the requirement that the invention be novel (no evidence can be found that anybody has thought of it before) and that it be non-obvious, that suggests that in order to obtain a granted patent one must indeed have created something worth protecting (and, in a capitalist system, profiting from). A problem is that, particularly in the US system, patent examination is arguably inadequate, in that patents are granted for which many or all of the above requirements may not be met. In that legal framework, the office's approach often appears from the outside to be "if nobody objects to the application, then grant it". The onus is left on other organisations and individuals to prevent inappropriate patent applications from being granted, often by producing prior art to prove the absence of novelty (proof of obviousness is harder - "Anybody could have thought of that ....."). Patents may also be revoked after grant, though this tends to be even more expensive. In a patent system with an adequate process of examination, only truly clever, novel and practical inventions, whose inventors arguably (and in a capitalist system, inevitably) deserve to benefit exclusively from the fruits of their endeavours for a short while, are granted patent protection. I'm not claiming any such system exists, but a central tenet of such a patent system is strong examination. Such a system should produce, in 20 years, a set of strong patents. Contrary to conventional wisdom, patents do not protect only large corporations. One idea which has been put forward is that patent infringement be a criminal offence, so that the state takes on the burden of prosecuting patent infringers. In a state with a patent system believed by the government to be good, then the state should surely have no problem with taking on this burden? A proposal exists that "lightweight" patents, with a lower cost, a lower examination threshold and a shorter life, should be introduced, ostensibly in order that more inventors might benefit from protection for their inventions than may under the current system. Should inventors have the right to profit from their inventions? A patent is a pact between an inventor and the rest of the world: "If I tell you how it works, you promise not to do it this way for 20 years". An alternative approach is trade secrets. -- Bill Gallafent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2006-10-17 at 09:46 +0100, William Gallafent wrote: (OT, thus off list)
A proposal exists that "lightweight" patents, with a lower cost, a lower examination threshold and a shorter life, should be introduced, ostensibly in order that more inventors might benefit from protection for their inventions than may under the current system.
I think such a system exists in Australia. There was a report in the IEEE Spectrum magazine. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFNK/9tTMYHG2NR9URAshUAJ9CJWWcnP3JC/fQeOJYMU9TXSZHpQCggaFg 8JfO9AWPT4O6W5td5yKcrY0= =h4xZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2006-10-17 at 12:27 +0200, I wrote:
(OT, thus off list)
Oops, sorry. Pressed enter too fast. :-/ - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFNLEatTMYHG2NR9URAja0AJ9CCxCTAL0F6sOJ7ctCBDbDp6M8ZwCgkQiC 1pOS6A0Gi595iz28WkaQMBc= =vYSl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Intellectual property" is a very real, very necessary part of the brave new world that we inhabit. Without it, innovation and creativity withers. Actually, its just the opposite. Linux is a prime example (or other unix-like OS). Why do you suppose that the vastly inferior windoze products flourished for the past twenty-five years without a unix-like OS coming up and squashing it? It is because of software patents.... the unix kernel and
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:18, Stevens wrote: the IP stack (all proprietary) prevented innovation and creativity, and allowed the M$ crud to become "popular," as in widely installed. This is being reversed now (thanks to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman). "Intellectual Property" actually slows innovation, stagnates creativity, and hurts society. Let's suppose (just for the sake of argument) that I own the "idea" of the dual circular linked list. I patent the idea. Then, I pull my "patent" out of my pocket from time to time and point it at anyone who has ever made a product that uses a "linked list" and I say, "gimme your dough". That happens every day. Nothing can be innovated because "everything" is owned by someone (usually a powerful someone, IbM, M$, etc)... which ends up in cross licensing and monopoly to the one holding the highest number of hostages, er, I mean software patents. In order for true innovation and creativity to occur in society, a free society must be allowed to creatively build upon the past without suit or reprisal... no one can own an idea in the software realm without that idea becoming a bottle-neck to growth, innovation and creativity... and Unix was a perfect example of this. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 22:06:13 PM -0500, M Harris (harrismh777@earthlink.net) wrote:
... In order for true innovation and creativity to occur in society, a free society must be allowed to creatively build upon the past without suit or reprisal
which still: has *nothing* to do with the need and question to which you reacted initially does *nothing* to prove that everything which is good (society-wise) for software is equally and necessarily good for (for example) books and literature, or personal information. ... as I and others have *already* explained at length in this and the other thread (IP, software, books...). Therefore, what about stopping this thread now? Thanks, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73
On Monday 16 October 2006 22:34, M. Fioretti wrote:
... as I and others have *already* explained at length in this and the other thread (IP, software, books...).
Therefore, what about stopping this thread now?
Thanks, Marco
-- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73
Because, of course, you have the only *right* way to discuss freedom, and only *your* freedom is worth passing on to our kids....? yeah, right. At least you didn't call me names... but, seriously, I am looking forward to reading your book. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 22:40:57 PM -0500, M Harris (harrismh777@earthlink.net) wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 22:34, M. Fioretti wrote:
The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73
Because, of course, you have the only *right* way to discuss freedom, and
my signature doesn't certainly say this
only *your* freedom is worth passing on to our kids....?
or this, either. The one who believes that only *his* freedom (as far as software is concerned) is worth passing to our kids is Stallman, not me. I surely don't think that mine is the only way to *discuss* these issues, etc... With all respect, this reaction seems another case of taking what enters one's mailbox as an occasion to express surely justified anger... about something else. What my signature says and means is simply: 1) we can blab all we want here on FOSS lists about how superior Free standards and software are, how much Stallman is great and got everything right etc... but the reality is that 95% of the world doesn't know us or FOSS yet and couldn't care less, because NONE OF THE OLD GNU / FSF ARGUMENTS MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL FOR THEM. This is a FACT. If you still need any proof for it, go in the street or outside a restaurant or theater and ask the first 100 people you meet if they love and want to protect their freedom to change Linux's source code or what they think of IP, software patents, GPL... And without the support of those people FOSS cannot win. 2) Yes, I *do* believe that my approach *is* much better to reach all those people so, at least, they finally become *aware* of the actual issues and can make *informed* decisions when they buy or vote. REGARDLESS of what they decide. I believe this is greatly different from saying that only *my* freedom is worth passing etc.. I have already explained all this in great detail in the "Opinions" section of the website. If you still want to discuss my views, I'm all yours, but let's do it off list, please, before other subscribers rightly complain. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73
participants (10)
-
Anders Johansson -
Bryan S. Tyson -
Carlos E. R. -
John Andersen -
M Harris -
M. Fioretti -
Randall R Schulz -
Ronald Wiplinger -
Stevens -
William Gallafent