Picking a license

[Stephen Hansen]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Martin P. Hellwig <
martin.hellwig at dcuktec.org> wrote:

> Microsoft has indeed lost control of it in the same way, it is just because
> we here in the 'western' world spend huge amount of money on prosecuting and
> bringing to 'justice' does who, whether for commercial purposes or
> otherwise, make a copy of a piece of code. Think about it, it is not
> stealing, the original is still there and no further resources where needed
> from the original developer.
>
> What I am saying is that all this license crap is only needed because we
> are used to a commercial environment where we can repeatedly profit from the
> same work already done.
>
> I am not saying that you should not profit, of course you should otherwise
> there is no interest in making it in the first place.
>
> What I am saying is that we as developers should encourage pay for work and
> not pay for code. This will, as I believe it, keep everything much more
> healthy and balanced. At least we can cut all the crap of software patents
> and copyrights.
>

Wait, what? Why shouldn't I profit repeatedly from the "same work already
done"? *I* created, its *mine*. I put blood, sweat and tears into it and
perhaps huge amounts of resources, risking financial security and sanity,
and you're arguing I shouldn't have the right to sell it after its done?

Exactly how do you imagine I'm going to make money off of it? How the
existing system works is that I sell... multiple copies of it. Maybe
hundreds or thousands before that investment is recouped. At that point, do
I no longer get to sell multiple copies? Or do I have to find someone to
retroactively pay me some kind of salary? What does "pay for work" even
mean?

What's wrong with software copyrights? Don't lump intellectual property
issues together, they're not comparable. Copyrights have nothing at all to
do with patents which have nothing at all to do with trademarks. Each is a
very different set of law.

Sure, there's some nutty corner cases in copyrights, which need to be
addressed-- including things like fair use and DRM. But on the whole,
copyrights aren't really all that broken. Its nothing like the situation
with software patents, which are just sort of crazy.



> For those who say it can't be done, sure it can, all you have to do is
> nothing, it takes effort to enforce policies.
>

And an entire industry ceases to exist overnight, with countless new
homeless people showing up on the streets.

You can believe in the Free Software movement (I'm not saying you do, this
'you' is impersonal and metaphorical)-- and if you do, good for you. You can
believe in "morality" with regards to "freedom" and the "essential rights"
of the users. I find it all nonsensical. But good for you if you believe in
it. But the Free Software movement exists *because* of copyrights. Copyright
Law is what makes the GPL even possible.

Microsoft charges you money for the use of their copyrighted software, and
doesn't allow you to share it with others.

The FSF charges you with an obligation to fall in line should you wish to
distribute their copyrighted software, but allows you to use it as you see
fit otherwise.

Both stances are empowered by the copyrights of the respective
organizations.

You're free to use Microsoft products if you are amenable to their terms. Or
FSF products if you're amenable to theirs. If you don't like either, don't
use either. If that means you resort to piracy, so be it. No, its not
"stealing"-- the RIAA/MPAA's campaign to equate copyright violation to
stealing is actively harmful towards the issue, but its also completely
irrelevant. Its a violation of copyright. The right to make copies. And it
makes you a little bit of a jackass if you're out of puberty, and allows me
to sue your ass if I find out. :) But I fail to see what's fundamentally
wrong with that system.

--S
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20100509/9877d112/attachment.html>