Linux laptops, revisited (can any sleep like my PowerBook does?)

Levi Pearson levi at cold.org
Tue Jan 22 10:07:49 MST 2008


Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> writes:

> Woah woah, hold on, stop and evaluate. Since when is the "right to
> control how your personal creations are used" a God given or intrinsic
> right?? I dare say it's not! Your _property_ is one thing, but as soon
> as you give something to somebody else, for whatever reason, it ceases
> to be your property. Can I get another AMEN!

You seem to be arguing for the right to reverse-engineer things here.
I'm all for that.  I, on the other hand, was arguing that if I
distribute a compiled version of a program of my creation, I shouldn't
be compelled to distribute the source code as well.

You may also be making an anti-copyright stand here.  While copyright
certainly isn't an intrinsic right, it is a negotiable one, and one
that pretty much all current governments recognize.  I think it's
potentially a good thing, but currently subject to abuse.

>> Any assertion that those rights *are* universal must be religious,
>> since they clearly aren't fundamental to human nature and only God
>> could choose to grant them universally. :P
>
> As well to copyright.

I wasn't talking about copyright, and it's clearly not universal.

> Yeah, calling the FSF principles "rights" might be in poor taste, but
> copyright itself is absolutely in poor taste itself. I'm not totally
> against copyright, I think it has in cases some merit. But to call it
> a "right" just rocks my boat.

They are rights, but they are not intrinsic rights.  One can provide
those rights in respect to specific software by licensing it with a
Free Software approved license.  My objection to the Free Software
Foundation is that they advocate placing all software under a
compatible license as a moral imperative.

                --Levi



More information about the PLUG mailing list