From: Oleksandr G. <gav...@gm...> - 2010-04-26 21:20:20
|
On 2010-04-26 11:51, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> Which is why it is perfectly normal for a Free Software >> adept to say that copyright is evil > > Copyright as a concept? Or some specific implementation in some > specific country? Oleksandr just said "Copyright is evil thing". To me > that sounds like saying the copyright concept; i.e. that the creator > of a work has the right to say how it is copied and used, is evil. > Which I found odd. > You say so because where you live think like you is norm. I live in Ukraine and in my country no one buys licence for any programs! Always used wares keygens and patchers. Only few large organisation buy licence and not for all used soft; and only if without buying they can damage their business. I thing there are up to 1.000.000 unregistered MS Windows copies. But also copyright as idea debatable in view of humanity. I think in some social order there are no place for copyright. -- Best regards! |
From: John B. <joh...@ho...> - 2010-04-26 21:33:04
|
Hello Oleksandr, On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:19:53 +0300, Oleksander Gavenko wrote: > > On 2010-04-26 11:51, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >>> Which is why it is perfectly normal for a Free Software >>> adept to say that copyright is evil >> >> Copyright as a concept? Or some specific implementation in some >> specific country? Oleksandr just said "Copyright is evil thing". To me >> that sounds like saying the copyright concept; i.e. that the creator >> of a work has the right to say how it is copied and used, is evil. >> Which I found odd. >> > You say so because where you live think like you is norm. > > I live in Ukraine and in my country no one buys licence > for any programs! Always used wares keygens and patchers. > Only few large organisation buy licence and not for > all used soft; and only if without buying they can damage > their business. > > I thing there are up to 1.000.000 unregistered MS Windows copies. > > But also copyright as idea debatable in view of humanity. > I think in some social order there are no place for copyright. > > -- > Best regards! > So if *you* created a program, you would not care if other people sold it as if they were the ones who created it? You would not mind doing all the work, while they keep all the money? Regards, Alias John Brown. _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 |
From: Tor L. <tm...@ik...> - 2010-04-27 05:48:17
|
> I live in Ukraine and in my country no one buys licence > for any programs! Sure, most people are well aware of the situation in countries like the Ukraine and other similar countries. I hope you realize that this also means "nobody" there can be expected to take the GPL, LGPL, or any other Open Source license seriously either? --tml |
From: Oleksandr G. <gav...@gm...> - 2010-04-27 19:06:07
|
On 2010-04-27 8:47, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> I live in Ukraine and in my country no one buys licence >> for any programs! > > Sure, most people are well aware of the situation in countries like > the Ukraine and other similar countries. > > I hope you realize that this also means "nobody" there can be expected > to take the GPL, LGPL, or any other Open Source license seriously > either? Most user don't know anything about licences because they usually in English (a few understand English) and there no need to buy if you can crack so there no stimulus for searching free alternatives. Ever not all software developer know about GPL/BSD/MPL... They copy/paste code from Inet and don't worry about legality of this action. Some checking can be forced by government, these action applied to enterprise and only then some official want press business for its own profit. Usually this issue resolved by bribe or by temporary installation of Linux on working PC )) -- Best regards! |
From: KHMan <kei...@gm...> - 2010-04-28 01:13:23
|
Oleksandr Gavenko wrote: > On 2010-04-27 8:47, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >>> I live in Ukraine and in my country no one buys licence >>> for any programs! >> Sure, most people are well aware of the situation in countries like >> the Ukraine and other similar countries. >> >> I hope you realize that this also means "nobody" there can be expected >> to take the GPL, LGPL, or any other Open Source license seriously >> either? > Most user don't know anything about licences > because they usually in English (a few understand English) > and there no need to buy if you can crack > so there no stimulus for searching free alternatives. > > Ever not all software developer know about GPL/BSD/MPL... > They copy/paste code from Inet and don't worry about legality > of this action. > [snip] Uh, let's not prolong this thread, I don't really see anyone speaking up in your support. So Oleksandr, if you want to follow your principles, I think the answer was something in the lines of -- you mustn't contribute in any manner to anything that ends up in w32api. A good idea, that. The sensible policies of the MinGW team should be respected. Even so, remember that lawyers can attack just to make your life hell, so let's not poke at them with a stick. Also read the history of Microsoft's behaviour. If you are a legit developer in a legit company, would you risk legal action by poking the gorilla? Do not think of yourself only. In certain areas, especially retro-gaming, the tendency to skirt the limits are common, but please realize that such behaviour is non-existent when dealing with developer groups like MinGW. When in Rome, please do as Roman do. -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
From: Oleksandr G. <gav...@gm...> - 2010-04-26 21:25:52
|
On 2010-04-26 2:03, LRN wrote: > I think the point my tongue-tied compatriot (?) was making is that GPL's > strength comes from copyright, i.e. it uses copyright to give people > freedom, while proprietary licenses use it in the opposite way. But the > law underneath is the same for both. > I should note here that Stallman clearly stated that despite this fact > (GPL relying on copyright) FSF is not going to support copyright law > tightening; quite the opposite - FSF is all for loosening copyright law, > as long as this doesn't give proprietary software any advantages (see > his amendment to Pirate Party's copyright proposal, should be somewhere > at FSF's website). That is, copyright here is a tool or a weapon, not a > goal or icon. Which is why it is perfectly normal for a Free Software > adept to say that copyright is evil, since by default it gives the > author exclusive rights that can be (and are) easily abused. Obviously > this refers to copyright's present state, not to the idea of a law about > information at a whole. > That exactly I have in mind! Another point of view: In some primitive African or Arabic countries you can get from friend or buy pdf text and 0. read it 1. study how it compound 2. redistribute or sell it but nobody can force you to open source! This is because low in this countries applied only for material things, not intellectual. In other corner West world use copyright because large part of society earn money from selling copyrighted works. Copyright allow you stop another from getting money or damage your small business based on copyrighted "product" ever if price for making a copy == zero. -- Best regards! |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-04-27 01:41:29
|
On 4/26/2010 5:25 PM, Oleksandr Gavenko wrote: > This is because low in this countries applied > only for material things, not intellectual. Really? That's news to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which manages the Berne Convention covering international patents and copyrights. It has 164 signatories -- that's everybody but one, I believe -- including the Ukraine. > In other corner West world use copyright > because large part of society > earn money from selling copyrighted works. > Copyright allow you stop another from getting money > or damage your small business based on copyrighted "product" > ever if price for making a copy == zero. So, if I spend 10 years of my life writing the next great novel, you think it is moral if one person in the whole world buys it, pays me $7.99 US, and then hands out pdf copies to 1.0 billion network-connected readers? IF that were the accepted law worldwide, then you would quickly discover that very few people would write novels, "full time". A hardy few MIGHT write novels in their spare time, around their actual day job, and maybe that's ok with you. It would certainly result in far fewer novels being written. No more Hemmingways. No more Dostoyevskis. Maybe an independently wealthy Tolstoy or two. I know this is not worldwide law, but the US Founders were very smart, and here's what they said: "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" IOW, more than 200 years ago they understand that -- in anything but a state-directed economy -- if you want authors to write (more) and inventors to invent (more), you need to encourage them to do so by allowing them to make a profit on their effort. Since the original author/inventor has costs to recoup -- if only to pay off the loans he took out to buy food while he was spending all his time for 10 years writing that great novel, instead of working a regular non-creative job -- any OTHER person who steals the product and distributes it has NO costs (or very very low costs), then that other person can undercut the original author, so the person who did the inventing/writing/creating can make no profit. Thus: no encouragement. Thus, less inventing. Less writing. Less creating. You say that everybody in your country uses warez software and books. I say (a) then everyone in your country is a thief, and (b) not only are they stealing from the original creator, they are stealing from ME. You are FREELOADING from costs that I pay -- because your thievery drives up the costs I pay to legally obtain intellectual products. There is a gift economy, in which people contribute gratis and libre their intellectual output. Libre music, libre libterature, libre software. I participate, quite a bit, as evidenced by my contributions -- gratis and libre -- to the mingw project! But OBVIOUSLY without a potential for profit, the gift economy cannot replace the "regular" economy in which you PAY to legally obtain both material and informational product. If it WERE sufficient to replace the regular economy, then it would have done so already -- and everything you'd ever need would already be libre (and gratis). But...you don't seem to find what you want in the gift economy, so you resort to stealing it from the regular economy -- and then claim that to do so is moral because "copies don't cost anything". No sir; you're a thief trying to rationalize your thievery. Interestingly, whatever you say about Ukrainian citizens' behavior, the Ukraine is a signatory to the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works": http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?treaty_id=15 So even your own country recognizes the need to reward intellectual effort, even if you do not. |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-23 23:45:31
|
NightStrike wrote: > > Can the FSF help in that area? > No, they don't own the MinGW headers and we would have to be willing to assign the copyright to FSF. Not going to do that. -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: NightStrike <nig...@gm...> - 2010-04-23 23:54:59
|
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Earnie <ea...@us...> wrote: > NightStrike wrote: >> >> Can the FSF help in that area? >> > > No, they don't own the MinGW headers and we would have to be willing to > assign the copyright to FSF. Not going to do that. Oh. I thought (purely through inference, not through explicitly hearing it) that the FSF would give legal advice to any free software project, not just the ones they own. Although as I recall, they don't really like public domain anyway... maybe that's changed? |