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

Hi Jeremy.

> 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.

I do count money as an incentive, but I agree that it isn't the only one. The
rest don't go far when it comes to paying the rent, however. Or are you just
considering part-time programmers?

Also, I might consider it a negative incentive to see a company pick up
something I wrote and sell it. They make money off my labor and I get nothing.

> Unless you have entered into an agreement AND are compensated for your
> time while creating, the results of your effort are yours.

So your view only applies to hobby efforts?

> ... but the idea that original author maintains rights and
> control over something that is not his own work is wrong.

His rights include disallowing you from patching his program. Why you wrote the
patch and the amount of time you spent doing it is irrelevant. The author's
rights existed before you started.

Copyrights can be sold like anything else. A programmer being paid for writing
a program (and transferring the rights to the payer) is a good example.

Regards,

John

   John Souvestre - Integrated Data Systems - (504) 355-0609

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nolug@stoney.redfishnetworks.com [mailto:owner-
> nolug@stoney.redfishnetworks.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list
> account)
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:35 PM
> To: nolug@nolug.org
> Subject: 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

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