Adrian Colomitchi <[email protected]>
writes:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Ben Finney
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From that it follows that it's unjust to deny the freedoms that accrue
> > for functional use of a work, merely because the copyright holder
> > doesn't think it has functional use.
> >
> My argument is: "since one cannot make a clear distinction between <it's a
> program> or <it's just data>", then "what the computer does to
> render/obtain the desired result" should NOT be a criterion in judging the
> copyrights (or, for the matter at hand, copylefts - still based on
> copyright laws), or at the very least *should not be the sole or even the
> main criterion in balancing the rights of the copyright holder and the
> rights of the consumer*.
This quote from Eben Moglen is relevant:
“We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream
from another in order to figure out which rules apply.” —Eben
Moglen, _Anarchism Triumphant_, 1999
I'm arguing, and it appears you agree, that we can't depend on some
fixed decision about which purposes are valid for a bitstream in order
to determine which freedoms apply indefinitely for future recipients of
it.
--
\ “Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of |
`\ ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort.” |
_o__) —Douglas Adams, _The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_, 1988 |
Ben Finney
_______________________________________________
Free-software-melb mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
