Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

Chad Perrin perrin at apotheon.com
Fri Sep 19 16:52:51 MDT 2008


On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:33:22PM -0600, John L. Bass wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 06:02:58PM -0600, John L. Bass wrote:
> >  
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>Open source software is supposed to about offering freedom of choice.
> >>Free software taking away the freedom of consumer to purchase their
> >>proprietary program they would choose, is about removing choice.
> >>    
> >
> >Err . . . is there some specific type of software that you imagine people
> >can only create as proprietary software?  I fail to see where open source
> >software would in any way eliminate choices in software.
> >  
> 
> The context is FOSS advocates that are against proprietary software, or 
> support the RMS manifesto, or deny the rights behind copyrights that 
> secure profits from software authorship. This manifests itself in the 
> lack of choice that Linux desktop users have when products are not 
> ported to Linux, because a vocal group in the FOSS community are very 
> hostile to shrink wrap binary applications on Linux. This is bad, 
> because while Linux offers choice, it at the same time prevents choice, 
> and further ensures the Microsoft de facto monopoly.
> 
> So, without that context, the statement appears a bit broad, and should 
> be restated to include the above.

Okay, that argument makes sense.  I'm not entirely sure how much I agree
or disagree with it at this exact moment in time, mostly because I'm
multitasking and don't feel like parsing it carefully enough to unravel
all the threads of thought in it, but I can at least see how it makes
sense from a given perspective.

I don't, however, see how it's relevant to the preceding statements by
others.  Where has anyone stated he or she takes such a position as that
you describe in the email immediately preceding yours?


> >  
> >>A programmer is an author, and should have the rights of any other
> >>author ... removing the rights of software authors, is just the first
> >>step of removing the rights from all authors, artists, and other
> >>creative people to remove their right of ownership, and right to make
> >>a living from their own creativity.
> >>    
> >
> >Whether copyright is a "natural" (read: ethical) right is a matter that
> >is open to debate.  Perhaps you should justify your support for copyright
> >before using it as a bludgeon
> The context is legal right to secure and enforce US copyright laws. I 
> very clearly stated otherwise in other posts. Any discussion toward 
> "natural" or "ethical" rights, is a different topic.

I thought we were talking about right and wrong, not legally protected
privilege.

It's obvious that the law protects the form of limited monopoly we call
"copyright".  I don't think anyone here disputes that.  This being the
case, I hope we can move on to a discussion of the ethicality of such
laws, the licenses people use to grant greater legal privilege than that
granted by copyright, the conditions such licenses may place on those
greater privileges, and the behavior of people who advocate certain types
of licensing.

From what I've seen, you seem to be conflating legal fact with ethics,
then claiming there's no ethical component to your arguments when
confronted on the matter.  If you more clearly differentiate between
ethics and law in the future, I think that would contribute to a more
productive discussion.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Thomas McCauley: "The measure of a man's real character is what he would
do if he knew he would never be found out."
-------------- 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/cdaf3ea8/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NCLUG mailing list