On 0, Antonio Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >The issue is not the modification of the hardware, per se, but rather > >the data that can then be pirated after the modification is made. > >Therefore, the one alternative is to limit piracy. In order to do that, > >strict policing of data streams is necessary. > > > > > This is a logic conclusion only if you assume that you own the flow > of data. This way we will soon be policing what other people think, > because may be they are using our thoughts without paying us for > that. The whole problem boils down to the fact that we humans > believee that when we think something we own that thought. This > wrong perspective follows from a misunderstanding of what thoughts > are. We can not own thoughts the same way that we can not own the > air of the planet. However, we have already seen many who have > profitted from selling air. This point of view (of rejecting the > property of thoughts) is as defendable as the point of view of > accepting it. And it seems to be very close to the point in a > Debian/Linux mailing list. This is free software, GPL after all.
Soon? Man, that's what intellectual property is all about (very
nearly, anyway).
The GPL does not say that nobody owns these thoughts. It is just as
much a restrictive license as other licenses, its just that the
restrictions are different. Instead of saying, 'You can't pass this
software on. You must buy it from the source,' it says, 'You can't
buy this software from the source. If you pass it on, you must make
sure that the next person has the same rights you do.' The GPL is not
a fundamentally different type of document from other licenses.
Intellectual property rights in fact have nothing to do with the
free/non-free debate. Intellectual property rights say that someone
who does something has the right to reasonable profit from it, and the
right to prevent other people from profiting from it. The
free/non-free debate is more about consumer rights, and what rights
you get when you lay down money for software.
As for comparisons between thoughts and air, I'm not quite sure where
you get this from, but it seems the same sort of messed-up alternative
philosophy that's ended us up in this mess. When will people learn
that you can't have freedom without real justice for everyone? And
that justice for everyone can't be had unless you have an absolute
standard of justice?
> >So that is your choice: give up freedom to modify hardware, or submit
> >all data moving in and out of your control to public scrutiny. Since the
> >former is both distasteful and fundamentally impossible to enforce, the
> >later is inevitable, IMHO.
> >
> >
> Absolutely not. This can be only the point of view if we see the
> universe as a huge shop full of merchandise. But this is far from
> the way other people perceive surrounding reality.
This is the sort of stuffed-up thinking that ends up with tyranny
ruling all.
Tom
--
Tom Cook
Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide
"Chaos Theory is a new theory invented by scientists panicked by the thought that the
public were beginning to understand the old ones."
- Mike Barfield
Get my GPG public key:
https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au
msg05528/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
