You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] notenoughstuff [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, it is Certhas' comment I meant to link to. I believed it would render well, but didn't check.

This is the way communists use the term "exploitation" to refer to voluntary trade.

Aren't he arguing for the universities getting something in return? For instance let companies buy the rights to the source code if they want?

Also, it seems like a different meaning than the one used by communists; they tend to present working for others as "unjust", while the meaning here seems more neutral, at least to me.

A non-commercial license prohibits this. Some of the replies feel the contradiction, but they don't really put their finger on it.

Is he generally against copyleft? Copyleft can IMO make a lot of sense, but it can also have drawbacks from an overall perspective, heavily dependent on the specific case in my beliefs.

Anyway, RMS's view against "intellectual property" neatly sidesteps the idea of responsibility for tools being misused by treating knowledge differently from physical objects, which it is.

Eh... I must say that he makes some very good arguments in the start against that.

[–] lemon11 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

RMS has written against "intellectual property" as a concept (though I haven't read it lately), and he pretty much invented "copyleft" as we understand it today. I personally prefer open licenses which free the users of code rather than the code as an end to itself. Similarly, knowledge is not an end to itself, but I think RMS would argue that this meshes with the purpose of libre licenses, which restrict what one party can do with another party's output, so that knowledge, technology, or algorithms don't become secret spells which become lost to the ages. He has a point.

But yes, non-commercial licensors can dual-license for profit. But funding research isn't what Certhas argued: he argued that some tools are too dangerous to be allowed commercial use, which in the end doesn't make sense, because if the tool is known about, and useful enough, it can be replicated. And anyway, not everybody cares about their legal licensing regime, least of all people whom he wouldn't trust with a piece of software he'd write.

[–] notenoughstuff [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

RMS has written against "intellectual property" as a concept (though I haven't read it lately), and he pretty much invented "copyleft" as we understand it today.

Richard Stallman has definitely had a very large influence on FOSS and the like, for better or for worse, but he was definitely not the only person in the beginning of those thoughts, ideas and movements.

But funding research isn't what Certhas argued: [...]

I don't believe that is true, at least reg. with the specific universities as well as research in general getting something in return, I think that was definitely part of his arguments.

[...] he argued that some tools are too dangerous to be allowed commercial use, which in the end doesn't make sense, because if the tool is known about, and useful enough, it can be replicated. [...]

I think he argued much more broadly than that, and even the point reg. limiting access does make sense. It is a good point you have reg. replication and the possibility, but in some regards, even hindering some or slowing them down can make a large or extreme difference. And it also limits who has the possibility of even pursuing replicating it or other approaches.

[...] And anyway, not everybody cares about their legal licensing regime, least of all people whom he wouldn't trust with a piece of software he'd write. [...]

Very true point, and he and others definitely need to keep that in mind if they aren't already, and it is very wrong and irresponsible of them if they aren't - but it can definitely still be a considerable hindrance in certain other case. And in some of those cases, those extra hindrances can be sufficient or good enough. But yeah, very true point. For some cases, software can then be kept private, not even giving out any binaries, and Richard Stallman and others do in their writings allow (somewhat) for that. One exception is I believe that of server software, which I believe Richard Stallman has argued should also be open.