[NCLUG] Re: Linux World domination (was "Re: NCLUG Digest...", etc.)

[John L. Bass]

Scott Kleihege wrote:
> I seem to recall you supported SCO's lawsuit against IBM/Linux.  That 
> makes me doubt the earnestness of your Linux support, but that is not 
> the issue here.

One can support strong copyright, business contract law, and support 
free open software like Linux at the same time, those are not mutually 
exclusive, either individually or in combination.
It's pretty obvious when you raise this point tongue in cheek, and 
acknowledge "that is not the issue", the real issue is to present to 
your readers the assertion that I'm already a bad guy for taking an 
unpopular position. The effect, combined with your false assertion that 
I don't support Linux (my statement of support for Linux was/is a lie) 
is character assassination to support your position.

>
> > I did not claim authorship as a natural right, I do claim authorship as
> > a legal right in the USA. I really don't care about, or care to debate,
> > that right is not universal on this planet.
>
> Straw man fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man].  I was not 
> questioning the "right of authorship", but the right to profit from 
> creative works.  The right to profit from creative works, particularly 
> software, is a political issue under debate in the USA at this point, 
> with active lobbiest groups, including the RIAA, MPAA, and on the 
> other side, the FSF.
I was responding to the first part of your statement "The "right to make 
a living from... creativity" is not a natural right", so I'm confirming 
that I do not assert that. I also was responding to the second part of 
that statement "but one dependent on a legal system for enforcement", so 
I'm confirming, and restricting, that to I do assert that right under US 
law.

This is not a strawman arguement as you falsely claim,  attempting to 
discredit the statement above, as I didn't make false claims as to your 
views or "misrepresentation of an opponent's position".  I did however, 
very carefully state my views, directly in the context you provided, 
where authorship is a proper subset of creativity.

The right to profit from authoring software, and music, and video, is a 
legal right in the USA.  The issue of piracy (violating the right to 
profit), illegally taking another's work and violating the rights 
provided by copyright law is represented in the complaints of RIAA and 
MPAA, where the court confirms the right of the authors to profit from 
their works. That has been upheld by the courts repeatedly, despite the 
efforts of those falsely asserting the right to piracy. It is not being 
debated in our congress at all. It's not even debated in the courts, as 
the rulings have been consistent and clear ... people do not have the 
right to pirate. This confirms the right of authors to profit from their 
works, and block those that pirate (ignore that right) for themselves, 
and others.

So, yes you are questioning the "right of authorship" when you question 
"the right to profit from creative works", for music, for video, and for 
software. The legal standards are clear, and are not being debated in 
congress or the courts, the debate has been over for quite some time. 
What you are also questioning, is the right of someone to have a choice 
to purchase use with support, combined with the authors right to 
restrict use and support to only those that purchase the bundled product ,

The proprietary Red Hat Enterprise model asserts the same right to 
profit, and that use of their product without paying for support is piracy.

> > I do not claim that advocating free software will lead to loss of 
> author
> > rights, so their is no logical fallacy.
>
> To be pendantic, I think you mean "there", not "their".

Which we all know is a violation of etiquette, simply attempting to 
belittle.**

>
> Your attempt to draw a correlation between "Linux World Domination", 
> and "Free software taking away the freedom of consumer" is completely 
> unsupported.  From there you went on to say that this is "the first 
> step of removing the rights from all authors".  How is this not a 
> Slippery Slope?
Completely unsupported? ... we need to agree to disagree here.

When free software adopts RMS's manifesto to remove proprietary software 
from the market, that *is* taking choice away from the consumer, with a 
stated agenda of the manifesto.  When the the GNU/Linux manifesto's goal 
starts being stated as "Linux World Domination", this seems to have no 
other objective than forcing all other choices out of the market, a de 
facto manopoly. What is implied, is that all other *free* and 
proprietary alternatives have been effectively eliminated or reduced to 
non-viable, leaving Linux the sole viable solution. The manifesto is all 
about removing the proprietary choice.

I believe, and assert, there will be a clear lack of choice if "Linux 
World Domination" actually occurs. What would be much better, I assert, 
is that thriving multiple choices of various free and proprietary 
choices, which will foster natural competition and evolution of new 
ideas that will be lost when any system dominates all the others.

So, what is wrong with multiple choices, where each thrives without 
domination by Linux?

What is wrong with having proprietary options which a customer can 
choose to purchase, such as Red Hat, or Microsoft?
>
> > There is a very clear reason to have public domain and restricted
> > licensed (BSD, GPL) "free" software and other creative works, and I
> > actively support that. You are very confused if you do not understand
> > the difference.
>
> This is begging the question 
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question], "Do I understand 
> the difference between different software licences?".  Yet another 
> informal fallacy.  Irregardless of the answer, the degree of my 
> software license knowledge has no bearing on "Linux World Domination".
Actually you are miss-stating the position by taking it out of the 
context of the several postings which frame my position, to falsely make 
this assertion. Not that different than your first assumption above that 
I can not be a Linux supporter, if I also support SCO's legal right to 
copyright and contract law tort protections.

This statement is simply an affirmation that I do support all three 
alternatives, including proprietary rights that others would like to 
remove, including it appears you from your comments above. I assert 
strongly, that anyone declaring US authors (software, prose, music, 
video, and other creative efforts) do not have a right to make a living 
from proprietary sales is very confused about the rights that US 
copyright offer.

> > I do not support those that wish to co-opt the free (as in freedom)
> > software movement to be the free (as in beer) monopoly software 
> movement.
>
> Another straw man to reduce the opposing side's argument to the 
> patently absurd position that free software should, or even could, 
> become a monopoly.
>
> If you're going to reply, please keep it cogent. 
Again, you resort to ridicule and false assertions. It's not "patently 
absurd" to connect the RMS manifesto and "Linux World Domination" for 
what they imply, and actually mean in english prose. It is certainly not 
a straw man arguement, as removing authors right to profit, and the 
result of the RMS manifesto and [GNU/] "Linux World Domination" is a 
defacto monopoly.

When you and others question "the right to profit from creative works", 
as you assert above, the express goal is to remove proprietary software 
and force free (as in beer) as well.

So, just how is this a straw man, as it certainly does not distort your 
goal to remove "the right to profit from creative works"?

My arguments are quite cogent, it's just that you have a strong 
difference of opinion, that differs greatly from US copyright law.

You can argue that Linux will never dominate, and therefor a monopoly 
isn't possible, but that is a very different argument.