Plan 9 license

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

Rather like a car wreck, I can't keep myself from watching.  I see
sloppy thinking on both sides of this debate.  Neither John nor David
should feel particularly distinguished by my response.

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:20:22AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> > "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.

Extralegal coercion can exist.  Cf:  mafia protection racket.

> >  But another definition of property is that it can be defended
> > and controlled through voluntary means. In terms of land ownership, it
> > can be defended and controlled in the absence of trespass laws through
> > the use of locks, fences and guards. Likewise, information can be
> > defended in the absence of IP laws through encryption, registration and
> > time limitations.
> 
> Hmp.  Just try defending property rights in -- or even the existence of --
> stock certificates in the absence of a legal system.

Rather than try to develop a new definition of property, how about
dicussing the relevance of an accepted legal one:

    1. The right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing (either a
    tract of land or a chattel);  the right of ownership.  2.  Any
    external thing over which the rights of possession, use, and
    enjoyment are exercised.

    Black's Law Dictionary (Pocket Edition)

> > Since information has been created by the author and
> > can be defended by the author, it counts as a form of property.

Rather more specifically, intellectual property, as distinguished from
real property.

> IP rights only become significant when the content *is* publicly
> known.  Secret books aren't that useful or profitable.

Disputed.  Again, Cf:  the mob.  Or the CIA.  To cite a different
authority:

    Success for some people, depends on becoming well-known; for others,
    it depends on never being found out.

      - Ashleigh Brilliant

Copyright can and has been used to protect unpublished materials.

> > But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software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.

Review please for class "first sale doctrine".

> > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?

Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see.  PD *is* free
software.  However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional set
of concerns.  Review please for class.


-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.                    http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/    K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20000904/e553aa44/attachment.sig>