Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

In article <uoxVe.15335$R5.1065@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
david.golden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> 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.

Artists willing to sell have an advantage in the market place. Duh.
Buyers with money also do well, I understand. The point is that nobody
is forced to sell their rights to anyone.

> > 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.

There's been real work in falconry, scaring pigeons away from airports.
It doesn't mean it's ever going to be more than a niche employment.

> > I have no interest in open-source software.
>
> Ironic given your interest in high quality software.

Not at all - what I've seen of open source has usually been poor
quality, unfinished software. Sometimes it is programmed well, but
defective in every other way.

> > and on which our free and prosperous society
>
> Our society is neither free nor prosperous.

Try Cuba, so.

> > 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.

Enough of this infantile nonsense about authors being 'paid for
disclosure'.

> > 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.

All property rights can be considered state-enforced restrictions on
others. We've been here.

> >> "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.

The point is that when an artist puts a statement in the mouth of a
character in an artwork, and does not in real life act as that
character does, or make similar statements of his own, it is dishonest
to represent that statement as being the opinion of the author, as you
have done.

In fact, it is pretty ironic that with all your mouthing about
"attribution" you attempted to project a statement by a character in a
computer game - a character who clearly is intended to represent just
one of numerous strands of political thought, and who in any case was
clearly talking about free speech, not copyright law - as a statement
by the author. So much for 'free speech with attribution', Golden-
style. (And you lie - there was no parenthethical remark explaining
this.)

[I am familiar with the game in question, and indeed paid for a
licence. Expectations that many would do the same were key to its
existence.]

- Gerry Quinn


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... > There was a time when artists whored themselves to rich patrons, ... Still is, only now the patrons, mostly corporations, demand exclusive ... sell out have an artificial advantage in the marketplace for patronage. ... It's the "patrons" pushing hard for strengthened monopoly rights, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: BIS
    ... by BIS, he's not subject to that criticism. ... keep demanding the rights to them. ... There is a huge *principle* difference between not being able to sell ... Only then can I look my artists in their faces, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: BIS
    ... by BIS, he's not subject to that criticism. ... keep demanding the rights to them. ... There is a huge *principle* difference between not being able to sell ... Only then can I look my artists in their faces, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: BIS
    ... more than a little time (say, the time it takes to sell out the stock ... keep demanding the rights to them. ... There is a huge *principle* difference between not being able to sell ... Only then can I look my artists in their faces, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Village idiot death match: Mikey -vs- Twonky
    ... do not sell,(not that we are topping Billboard last week), that imho ... I do not judge an artists worth by how many c.d.'s they do or do not ... wrongly by Nashville, Country Music, and Columbia; ... I got your high note baby, and that ain't delusional, but my high notes ...
    (rec.music.makers.trumpet)