Joel Rees wrote:
On 2006.2.21, at 04:50 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
All you are doing in asserting that the GPL takes freedom away is complaining that the author failed to choose the license you think he or she should have chosen.
I object to the use of the word "complain" in this context. Nowhere have I complained about the GPL, LGPL, or any other form of license, nor have I complained about anyone using the GPL, LGPL, or any other form of license. I also have not anywhere asserted that GPL takes any freedom away. I wouldn't assert that, because I don't believe it. Perhaps the assertions of more than one person are getting conflated in your mind? My position on this matter is that if one writes something original, then the moment he writes it, it is his sole property. If he gives a copy to someone else, then so long as no crime or tort[*] is involved, he can do so under whatever restrictions he likes. I don't care. What I write is mine, and what you write is yours. You may use whatever form of license you like, or none at all. So may I. I do think that it behooves someone to know and understand the consequences of using a particular license before using it. [*] I'm trying to exclude the "you may have and use a copy of this, but only if you give me your first born son" type of stuff. That is, requiring one to commit a crime or a tort.
This seems to me to be an argument based on the idea of exploiting and exploited classes.???It seems to presuppose that when an exchange is made, then one side benefits, and the other loses.In much of the world's markets, that is precisely what happens.
I thought that was in the back of your mind somewhere. Exchange of wealth, in whatever form, is not a zero-sum game.
Money is not the only coin. Nothing is ever given away for free, even things assigned to the PD. There is a difference between exchanging value and exchanging obligations, and establishing a price is _not_ imposing obligation.
Hmm. All this is agreed. I'm taking "Money is not the only coin" figuratively to mean "financial reward is not the only reward." If I put something into the public domain, then I certainly lose ownership of what I relinquished. Certainly price and obligation are different things.
Failure to establish a price, on the other hand, does leave one wide open to exploitation.
In what sense? If I produce something and distribute it with
no expectation of recompense, then in what way am I exploited
(I suppose you mean "unreasonable exploitation") if someone
uses what I produced without giving me recompense? Or did I
misunderstand what you wrote?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
