Re: [Nolug] RMS vs Cisco (Round 1 *ding*ding*)

John Souvestre wrote:
> Hello Jeremy.
>
> > That is an extreme version, and I think that we would all agree to your
> > point on that specific case. However, in the cases of substantial
> > changes, this creates a problem. What incentive is there, then, to
> > make improvements to existing works?
>
> Only the incentive that the owner of the code decides there should be. It's his
> choice, not yours.

I think you may have take the term incentive to little. I'm not
talking about compensation, I'm talking about the ability to enjoy the
fruits of one's time and effort. In essence, sense you get nothing and
no longer enjoy the rights to the work and outcome of your labor, there
is no point in doing anything.

> > If someone makes a major
> > improvement to something, but loses control because it is a derivative
> > work, it makes no sense to make that improvement. They loose the
> > rights and rewards that go along with that work.
>
> They had no rights to start with, so they are losing nothing.

Whenever you make, write, create something, there is a natural right to
results of your effort. It is yours. That's part of how the whole
capitalism thing is suppose to work. I make a pot on my pottery wheel
in the backyard, it is mine. I write a novel, it is mine. Unless you
  have entered into an agreement AND are compensated for your time while
creating, the results of your effort are yours.

> You seem to feel that the ends (patches making a better program) justify the
> means. But have you considered that the author might have not written the
> program to start with if he knew that he wasn't going to be able to control it?
> Where would you be then with no program to start with?

Actually, I don't believe the ends justify the means in this case. I
believe that if someone creates a patch or substantial improvement to
program X in the form of patch Y, that patch or improvement, because it
is the results of someones time and labor, should be under their
control. Yeah, the sum total of program X is under the original
authors control, but the idea that original author maintains rights and
control over something that is not his own work is wrong.

I believe that if someone creates something through their own effort,
the only person that should be entitled to the rights and control of
that work is the person who wrote it. Patch Y, while not as large as
program X, represents a body of work. Depriving the person that
created that work of the inherent rights that applied to something
create by their own effort is an injustice to that person. At that
point, objectively it no long makes sense to produce patches and
improvements if you can't enjoy the results of your effort.

This even extends to things like the copyright law that has allowed the
King family to maintain a stranglehold on the writings of MLK. The idea
that family members that had no role in the writings should maintain
control and reap the rewards of those writings is disgusting.

J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/14/08