Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Another 18th century term for property was "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Unlikely.  "Happiness" in this context almost certainly means "public
> happiness", the participation in republican governmental institutions.

Considering that "life, liberty and property" was a catch-phrase of the
American revolutionaries, and referred to the natural and unalienable
rights of peole, it seems natural to assume that "pursuit of happiness"
meant "property" in the context of the Declaration of Independence. To
quote form an essay by Jack Hitt <www.msnbc.com/news/332947.asp>,

"Yet it's puzzling why Jefferson didn't simply lift Locke's familiar
and felicitous phrase and drop it into place. Some people believe that
is more or less what he did. Newspaper columnist William Safire
dismisses the phrase as nothing more than an "inspirational lift,"
adding, then, that a "euphemism started the trouble."
	Euphemism? Was Jefferson really just trying to find some prettier
synonym for "property"? Those who knew, and agreed with, Jefferson's
own ideal of limited government would argue that any government's sole
job is merely to protect our ability to accumulate property. The
marketplace will resolve all other matters of conflict. The framers of
the Constitution believed, like Locke, that governments are instituted
to protect the good and productive citizen-his life, liberty, and
property. Nothing more." 

> > "right of property" is a dangerous concept, meaning that someone else
> > can be compelled to hand over their property to you, whereas the right
> > to pursue property  means that you can use voluntary means to acquire
> > property but cannot coerce it from anyone.
> 
> Coercion, like property, can only be defined within the context of a
> specific legal system.  It has no natural existence.

But we have a legal system, and even without it, we still have a
dictionary. Call it whatever you want, if someone compells me against
my will I will name it coercion.

> Hmp.  Just try defending property rights in -- or even the existence of --
> stock certificates in the absence of a legal system.

In the absence of a legal system I will have much bigger things to
worry about than stock certificates, like how to keep Thog from taking
the flint spearhead I spent a week making. Even anarchistic
(not nihilistic) societies have legal systems. If you and I have a
disagreement, and we go to a third person to settle the matter, we have
a legal system.

> > But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software
> > developers can still privately protect their works.
> 
> Indeed, the copyright license for closed-source software is no problem:
> "All rights reserved".  Since you do not own the software anyway,
> your other rights don't exist.

Using copyright to protect your work is *not* privately protecting it.
I meant stuff like contracts, encryption, registration, etc. Or in
other words, the intellectual equivalent of locks and fences.

> "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights."
> 	-- the GNU GPL

Ah! Sounds like RMS is asserting ownership rights over his software! If
software should not be owned then why the hell does the author restrict
me?

> > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?
> 
> You cannot create a "public domain binary" of a copyrighted work, since
> it is a derivative work and you cannot dedicate it to the public domain
> (even assuming that it is possible to do so at all).

??? So what? Assume that I licensed under the MIT, or even freer
license. Or assume that you are right and software cannot be owned and
copyrights are repealed tomorrow and anarchy is instituted Tuesday,
which lapses into a state where there is no legal system on Wednesday,
and I distribute a binary of my own work on Thursday. Why is my work
considered non-free? What freedoms have I taken from you?

> > Getting back to freedom as I finish off this rant, tell me how I am
> > denying you life, liberty or property when you have voluntarily and of
> > sound mind purchased my proprietary and closed source software, knowing
> > full well in advance that you would not be able to modify and
> > redistribute it? How can I possibly be coercing you if the exchange was
> > completely open and voluntary?
> 
> If it were *completely* open and voluntary, you couldn't.  Few transactions
> actually meet that standard.  Typical shrink-wrap contracts are
> not only contracts of adhesion ("take it or leave it") but are not
> even known to you until you have purchased the software.

I didn't mention shrink-wrap. I vehemently disagree with shrink-wrap
licensing. But this is a side issue that has nothing to do with whether
proprietary software coerces you. By "open" I meant that I disclosed to
you the product, price, warranty and license before hand. By
"voluntary" I meant that I am not forcing or tricking you into buying
it. Perhaps it is even shareware, where you can try it out first
(though few material goods have even this much disclosure) In this case,
you say that I can't be coercing you. Very well then, if I am not
coercing (assuming a society with a legal system) you in any way how
am I depriving you of your liberty?

-- 
David Johnson
_________________________
<http://www.usermode.org>