Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

In article <qc1Ve.15240$R5.966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
david.golden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> > The point is that your proposal is to make such exotic methods
> > necessary, when they are not necessary now.
> Exotic methods? You think being paid for actual work done is exotic?

They are exotic in a modern environment. There was a time when artists
whored themselves to rich patrons, but in an anonymous electronic
society, relying on such methods, even if they were not humiliating, is
most unlikely to be successful.

> What I say doesn't matter. There are artists, mathematicians,
> scientists, programmers and engineers (not that any of those are
> mutually exclusive) already doing it of their own accord.

Sure, lots of people produce freeware for fun, or produce papers
because they get their money from tenure in a university.

> I've paid several times more for open software over the years than
> closed software (in kind (i.e. source/bugfix contributions) and with
> what passes for "money" these days) - open software is far more
> valuable to me.

Authors can't eat source. If people want to give software away and
accept help on their projects, that is fine. Presumably most of them
have real jobs as well. I have no interest in open-source software.

> I HAVE proposed "attribution"*, so that people know who to pay for new
> services of authorship, and who to choose to pay for existing released
> information if they want to reward the correct person, and so that
> authors can establish reputation. It shouldn't be a transferable
> "property" right, just an extra right: Transferability would be pretty
> damn stupid for attribution rights (it's pretty damn stupid for
> copyright and patent too, but that didn't stop 'em).

It would be stupid for attribution - it is natural and logical for
copyright and patent. (Those who want to take it away are
disingenuously trying to destroy the system of property rights that has
been built up over centuries, and on which our free and prosperous
society largely depends.)

> You appear to have merely decided the balance of power should lie with
> those most willing to deny others information and allow others to deny
> others information. Exclusivity of information and the existence of an
> ability to possess exclusive information beyond natural means of
> nondisclosure appears to be more important to you than the value of
> information in itself, we're right back to "not enough for you to
> win, everyone else must lose".

That argument is nonsense. If everyone can copy an author's work
without payment, there is no win for the author.

> (Even worse if copyrights and patents are transferable, because then
> people purely out to restrict others can buy up the rights to do so).

An author can choose whether to sell or not.

> "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart
> he dreams himself your master." - Sid Meier.

Another 'Heinlein'-style comment. I don't recall any of his games
being offered free, in the hope that players will subscribe together to
pay him to develop a new one.

- Gerry Quinn