Re: [ox-en] [Fwd: <nettime> dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software]
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:
First blur: Timothy Baldwin's post talked about 'intellectual property'.
You have now identified this with 'creators rights or copyright'.
I agree that there is a distinction for laypersons, but it is also
important to remember different audiences. With laypersons the term
"intellectual property" is confusing as it both mixes areas of law that
are more dissimilar than similar and it gives people the wrong impression
about what is 'owned' (if anything). I probably replied the way I did as
I am hanging around with a lot of lawyers these days that use the term
(correctly, IMHO) in a legal sense.
Sorry if I misinterpreted what was said. Some people, when they say
they don't like "intellectual property", are actually saying they don't
like copyright rather than disagreeing with the analogy of copyright to
tangible property.
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?
The problem is that neithor saying "commercial software" or "proprietary
softare" differentiates FLOSS from non-FLOSS. Each of FLOSS and non-FLOSS
can be commercial and non-commercial software, and both are proprietary
software.
I don't know what word to use for the layperson outside of our
community, and any suggestions are greatly appreciated. I am only
allerting people to the fact that the terms "commercial software" and
"proprietary software" not only do not differentiate us, but the use of
these terms is harmful to us.
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.
In my conversations with RMS over the years I have come to realize that
he wants to more radically change the world than I do. It was a surprise
to me to realize just how much more radical he and others more connected
with the FSF were as I previously thought of myself as quite radical.
For me the issue is a much more simpler (and achievable, as we are
largely underway) transformative buisness change recognizing the ways in
which intangibles like software are entirely different from tangibles like
hardware. From this different uses of (and limits to) copyright come out,
information process patents (or any other patents relating to processes
outside of the manufacturing of tangible products) are abolished, and
other such progressive and achievable reforms of existing laws.
I don't think I would like a world where the GPL would not be needed.
Using business models out of the manufacturing sector seems legitimate to
me in very niche markets (less than an extreme fraction of 1% of the
approximately 5% which is distributed software at all).
There are places where I believe such methodologies should be banned,
such as those listed in my signature.
---
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/