[LAU] Some disturbing news

[David Kastrup]

Louigi Verona <louigi.verona at gmail.com> writes:

> Hermann,
>
> I actually disagree with that. And what I disagree with is this:
>
> "At least, any knowledge or development"
>
> There is a profound difference between knowledge and development. It would
> indeed be immoral in the longer term to not share knowledge. But this is
> not what's happening. Anyone who wants to write their own Skype is free to
> do that based on industry-level expert knowledge out there, which is not
> secret at all. Although there are, of course, proprietary algorithms,
> frequently a lot of them are published or are in many ways irrelevant.
> Proprietary algorithm doesn't mean good or efficient, it just means you
> cannot see how its implemented.

You are confusing "closed" and "proprietary".  Patented algorithms are
proprietary but open.  To be subject to copyright, something must be
published in the first place.  Closed source is covered by trade
secrets, not copyright.  It's the distributed binaries which are covered
by copyright.

> In fact, I find this feeling of entitlement to other people's work on
> the part of many ideologically charged FLOSS community members quite
> indecent.  If I am writing a program, I don't see how anyone is
> entitled to my work.

Nobody is entitled to your work.  On the other hand the question is why
you are entitled to a state-controlled monopoly over any followup work
in excess of 70 years beyond your death.

The copyright act spells out that you are granted a time-limited
monopoly over the proceeds of your work in order promote science and the
arts.  This is not a natural right but a social contract.  However, 70
years beyond your death clearly shifts the main benefit of your work out
of your own hands.  This is also not "time-limited" since any
mathematician will tell you a "limit" does not grow but is fixed in
relation to other variables.  Furthermore, posthumous extensions of
copyright clearly rob you of your impact on future generations without
giving you anything in return.  They are a violation of the terms that
you agreed to let a publisher handle your copyright under.

> And when we compare commercial programs with FLOSS programs, it is not
> infrequent to see a dramatic difference in quality.

When we compare Shakespeare's works with daily sitcoms, it is not
infrequent to see a dramatic difference in quality, either.  In spite of
the latter having 95 years of copyright after the authors' death.

-- 
David Kastrup