Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

Rob Thorpe wrote
(in article
<1125080649.650054.60790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

> Chris Sonnack wrote:
>> David Golden writes:
>>
>>> The slavery example shows that what is considered property by the
>>> lawyers can change, anyway.
>>
>> A bad example, I think, due to the implication that it was just a
>> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. The presumption
>> is that, all things being equal, the law could change back again.
>>
>> I do not believe all things ARE equal. We realized that we were WRONG
>> about slavery and corrected that wrong. Actually, we always pretty
>> much knew it was wrong--the error was in trying to pretend that the
>> folks we stole from Africa were not really people, but some form of
>> two-legged, articulate cattle.
>>
>> I VERY much doubt that the laws that have evolved to protect the
>> efforts of the author/musicial/programmer/architect will ever be
>> viewed as immoral.
>
> There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the
> programmer, laws have been created to protect the author,musician and
> architect, yes. But it's those same laws that have been applied to
> "protect" the programmer also.
>
> The situations are in fact completely different.

Not really. If you slice and dice properly, you can pretend
otherwise though, as we see.

> There is no concept
> of source and object code for example in any of those other
> occupations.

And there is no concept of a saxophone reed in software
developemnt, but that is irrelevant. What is common is the idea
of work product. Not to mention the more general 'trade
secrets' that allow companies (of any kind) to protect their
work, such as pharmaceutical companies, 3M to protect the
formula for the famously bad glue responsible for sticky notes,
or even for McDonald's to pretend that 'secret sauce' isn't
really watered down Thousand Island dressing.

> An author, musician or architect can't hide how their
> creations actually work,

Sure they can. does a guitarist /have/ to tell you what sort of
home grown effect he built in his garage for that really cool
sounding 3rd track on his debut CD? No.

> as a programmer can be copyrighting an almost
> incomprehensible blob of machine code generated by a compiler.

It's not incomprehensible to someone sufficiently skilled.
Analyzing modern art and finding meaning in it is as opaque to
me as reading even the source code, much less the binary of a
large software project is to a performance artist.

> The other professions are also not incremental. I think I could, with
> enough time to understand the problem, add a useful feature to any
> piece of software in existance. I think most programmers could. I
> doubt though that I could improve on Chapter 4 of "The Great Gatsby",
> "Mr Tambourine Man" or King's College Chapel, and I doubt anyone else
> could.

Because you are not trained in it. I have talked to plenty of
artists (and especially architects) that firmly believe they
could improve on famous products in their field, just as
software developers often claim they could make software work
better if they just had access to the source. Some are right,
some are full of crap, it's true in every profession where you
find opinionated people.

> Lastly, ask users of software whether they think the laws that protect
> it are correct. Many will tell you that they protect one guy, and his
> name's Bill.

They don't have to buy his software. The fundamental problem is
the consumer herd mentality, not the law. If consumers only
were willing to pay for quality, and actively boycotted bad
software, bill gates would not be a billionaire today. He'd
probably be selling used cars.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >> There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... programmer produces. ... > artists that firmly believe they ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... > matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. ... There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... "protect" the programmer also. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. ... > There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... > "protect" the programmer also. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Sex with a woman who is drunk may soon be rape
    ... Now democracies are committing the same slavery ... forced labour and oppression that monachies did. ... It is Saint Thomas Aquinas' view that when the laws of men violate the laws ...
    (talk.rape)
  • Re: Do you support freedom or democracy?
    ... The war was never fought to free the ... Slavery throughout the US was ultimately abolished by the 13th. ... slavery did not join the Confederacy. ... I am sure that in 250 years our drugs prohibition laws will ...
    (uk.politics.misc)