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

[Chad Perrin]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 08:47:18PM -0600, Scott Kleihege wrote:
> 
> > That is very different from supporting other radical Linux backers that
> > have a broader agenda, and open hate of non-linux or proprietary software.
> 
> I don't think anybody here is proposing the legal abolishment of your 
> freedom to create software using whatever license you choose.  There is, 
> however, hope that free (as in freedom) software as a group will achieve 
> majority market penetration and become the de facto standard.

Well . . . to be perfectly honest, I'd like to see the elimination of the
entire concept of implied contracts in law, which is essentially what
copyright (along with copyright-dependent EULAs) is.  Contractual
restrictions should only be held inviolable in law when they are subject
to explicit, uncoerced agreement prior to the legal applicability of such
restrictions.


> 
> > 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.

To be pedantic, I think you mean "lobbyist", not "lobbiest".


> 
> > 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".
> 
> 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?

As presented by John Bass so far, it looks a lot like a slippery slope to
me.


> 
> > 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".

What confuses me is the use of the word "restricted" in reference to the
BSD license -- since it's effectively equivalent to the public domain,
but with a heritability clause.  The only real *restriction* is the fact
that the license is implicitly tied to *software*, and thus inappropriate
for other forms of copyrightable works.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
H. L. Mencken: "In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always
something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a
Republican."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20080919/30de2b8b/attachment.pgp>