Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> There was a time when artists whored themselves to rich patrons,

Still is, only now the patrons, mostly corporations, demand exclusive
rights in addition, seeing as they exist to demand. Artists willing to
sell out have an artificial advantage in the marketplace for patronage.
It's the "patrons" pushing hard for strengthened monopoly rights, not
artists, as anyone tracking the astroturf campaigns of the corporate
dinosaurs in europe will know. It's not about art, it's about control.

> even if they were not humiliating,

No more humiliating than anyone else being paid for services rendered.

> Authors can't eat source.

And? Doesn't mean it doesn't have value to them. I can't eat a wrench
either (well, strictly speaking, I could, at least a small one, but I'm
pretty sure I'd regret it), doesn't mean a wrench isn't useful and
valuable to me.

> 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.

Sure do, often creating open source stuff. There's been real work
in open source for years now.

> I have no interest in open-source software.

Ironic given your interest in high quality software.

> and on which our free and prosperous society

Our society is neither free nor prosperous.

> That argument is nonsense. If everyone can copy an author's work
> without payment, there is no win for the author.
Rubbish. For starters, he could have been paid for its creation or
disclosure. His reputation might be enhanced (or tarnished, but that's
the risk one takes by disclosing a composition) - and if you don't
profit from enhanced reputation, then you're definitely living on a
different planet.

And he still HAS his work, and he can have copies of other free work.

>> (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.

Oh, that's alright then, look he doesn't HAVE to sell his power to
control others to anyone else... Copyright and patent are mostly or
entirely negative rights, restricting others. If you don't think the
rights should exist, it's cold comfort that one guy who shouldn't have
them is free to choose not to sell to an even worse guy.

>> "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.

Another Gerry-style nonrebuttal.

> 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.
And? That's not what the quote says, now, is it? I even helpfully
included a parenthetical remark pointing that out this time. Once
again, you target the messenger rather than the message: you prate
about art, but what you really want is control.