Message 01399 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01252 Message: 4/8 L3 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] [Fwd: <nettime> dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software]



Hi Russel,

I think you're blurring separate issues here ... ;-)

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Russell McOrmond wrote:


On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Timothy Baldwin wrote:

It is proprietary software which can not exist without intellectual property 
rights, it is, by definition, intellectual property.

The only use of intellectual property of importance to free software is to 
prevent non-free derived versions. Without intellectual property and with a 
legal right of access to source code, all software will be free software.

  Before I got involved in the Creators Rights movement and the copyright
consultation process in Canada I had the same misconception.  The Free
Software movement is not at all about abolishing creators rights or
copyright, and in fact the FSF can be seen as one of the first creators
rights organizations.

First blur: Timothy Baldwin's post talked about 'intellectual property'.
You have now identified this with 'creators rights or copyright'. But
it is perfectly possible to support creators rights and copyright without 
supporting the 'intellectual property' view of things. IIRC Canadian law
has elements of French law, which places more emphasis on creators rights 
and less on 'intellectual property' than anglo-saxon law. Even if no
current laws anywhere embody a non-intellectual-property view of 
copyright, there have certainly been plenty of lawyers supporting such a 
thing in the past.

(See my submission to Heritage cmtee members for more:  
http://www.flora.ca/copyright2003/ )

  I am curious: Do you believe that Article 27(2) of the United Nations 
Declaration of Human rights should be abolished?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

"      (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and 
material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic 
production of which he is the author."

  As a long time promoter of the Free Software movement I can tell you 
that I do not. 

Second blur: you've jumped from 'creators rights or copyright' to a 
generic 'protection of moral and material interests'. This is a very 
general statement (which put this abstractly I would agree with) which
could be referring to copyright, patents, or ANY system which achieves 
this goal.

  The issue of FLOSS vs non-FLOSS (saying proprietary is 
incorrect as all software not in the public domain is proprietary)

... hang on, you were the person that persuaded me that I was wrong to
say 'commercial software' and should be saying 'proprietary software'.
Now I have to call eg. Word 'non-FLOSS software'? And expect anyone at
all outside the FLOSS communities to understand me? 

is a 
business model issue that goes back to the 1960's historical split of 
software from hardware.

  Recognizing that software is not a manufactured product that must be
sold on a per-unit basis is something that many people are understanding.  
We can move away from these rights-hindering business models without
abolishing creators rights.  Being hostile to creators rights, however, 
will hinder and not help our progress.

  Abolishing currently recognized human rights is not what I think of when
I think of a "GPL society" -- quite the opposite.  I do hope everyone here
will look more deeply into these conversations and not try to derail the
work that some of us are doing to get open collaborative models for the
creation of public goods into WIPO, WSIS and related international
discussions.

For me, there are different goals: what I think is reasonably achievable 
now (which is quite largely defensive), and what I'd like to see in an 
ideal world. I wouldn't try to push my 'ideal world' view to WIPO, which
would be a pointless exercise.

In my ideal world, there would be creator's rights. These would
include things like the right to be acknowledged as the author. But they
might not include things like the right to sell or otherwise transfer my
creator's rights to someone else. This is unworkable in the current 
system, but I wouldn't see discussing this as 'trying to derail your 
work', which I also think is very important...

Graham
PS also, re your comments on FSF - I have heard rms say (when pushed by 
his audience) that in his ideal world there would be no need for the gpl.
I'm sure he didn't mean 'no creators rights' either.

 
---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/


_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01252 Message: 4/8 L3 [In index]
Message 01399 [Homepage] [Navigation]