[nzlug] Re: M$ is targeting YOU

[Simon Bridge]

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 02:32 +1200, cr wrote:
> On Thursday 29 March 2007 21:34, Simon Bridge wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 22:59 +1200, cr wrote:

> > The GPL is *built* on copywrite law.
> > Without the GPL, OSS/FS and GNU/Linux would be on much shakier ground.
> > In this case, copywrite seems to be doing its job of protecting rights -
> > even though it is not the way the law was originally conceived of being
> > used.
> 
> Actually, I agree with that statement.    There are points to be made both 
> ways and I'm not sure I expressed mine all that well either.
> 
> If there was no such thing as copyright, or software licenses, then (IMO) 
> Linux would still be just as successful as it has been.   (Is what I meant).
> 
> Since copyrights do exist, then I entirely agree, the GPL is an excellent 
> countermeasure.   
... to the malicious use of copyright to remove freedoms etc, yes. As a
counter to copyright law itself? Methinks this is not what you intended
to say :)

> 
> (Software patents, now, are altogether more sinister and dangerous).
Another concept which is philosophically tricky - it's like patenting an
idea.
> > Personally, I think the main strength of the GPL is that people *want*
> > to comply (not the copywrite law). The GPL is seldom breached, and when
> > breached, seldom by individuals. With regular licenses it is exactly the
> > other way around (mp3 *cough*).
> 
> Well, how do you 'steal' something that has been GPL'd?   <g>   It requires 
> rather more effort than just making a copy and giving it away....
> 
You steal it by using GPL code to make your own product, then distribute
the code without the GPL. The fact that there is no actual money being
stolen can make individuals primarily concerned with money to feel that
doing this is not *really* theft at all ... so a good point.

The GPL does make the whole concept of software piracy moot.

I remember pondering the issues of software (and electronic data) theft
way back when the BBC aired "The Mighty Micro". I remember thinking that
the concept of ownership would need to change, though something like
book copyright could apply to computer programs and electronic data.

However, I don't think the issues raised in that program have ever been
satisfactorily addressed - I think the GPL and open philosophy comes
closest to a workable solution. And I don't think that this will be
globally accepted within my lifetime.

> I think this is something that non-Linux users have trouble getting their 
> heads around...   they're so used to paying for everything that the idea that 
> a serious piece of software could be genuinely free with no strings attached 
> is incomprehensible to them.
Yeah - the old: If I cannot make millions from it, why should I do it?
If I cannot force you to pay me, why should you?

It is usually best not to do business with such people if you can help
it. They are silently thinking: "If you cannot force me to pay you, why
should I?"