Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Upd-discuss] Response from Sabine Nuss to Stallman Re: Paper:"Digital property" By Sabine Nuss, NY, NY, April 12-14, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Zapopan Martin Muela-Meza
    From: Richard M. Stallman To: Zapopan Martin Muela-Meza CC: lib-info-society@yahoogroups.com,
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@...>
      To: Zapopan Martin Muela-Meza <zapopanmuela@...>
      CC: lib-info-society@yahoogroups.com, lib-plic@yahoogroups.com,
      rekombinant@...,
      upd-discuss@...,
      biblio-info-sociedad@..., sabine.nuss@...
      In-reply-to: <20050907112725.47068.qmail@...> (message
      from Zapopan Martin Muela-Meza on Wed, 7 Sep 2005 04:27:25 -0700
      (PDT))
      Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] Response from Sabine Nuss to Stallman Re:
      Paper:"Digital property" By Sabine Nuss, NY, NY, April 12-14, 2002

      --text follows this line--
      I read and responded to the first part of Sabine Nuss's response.
      (Then I ran out of time.)

      According to the internet freedom fighters is that, what can be done
      with software (and other information) in the real world, different
      from what can be done with physical objects. But: the internet
      freedom fighters draw the consequences that there must be other rules

      for this sphere.

      Yes, we do say this.

      Those words above accurately represent the views of some people,
      including me. However, the article presented the views inaccurately,
      saying that we deny software is part of the real world.

      Now I would
      add, that in a capitalistic society for the „immaterial world“ the
      same rules are valid as for the material world:

      On the contrary, under current US or EU law, the rules are NOT the
      same. Copyright law does make people treat copies of information
      _more_ like physical objects, but it's still not the same.

      More importantly, that is not the only option that a capitalist
      society has. There is no single choice that is automatically forced.

      private property is
      the precondition for selling things (unless intellectual work is
      protected by a different law – the copyright law).

      The term "selling", when applied to software, often hides a lot of
      complexity. For instance, anyone can make and sell copies of free
      software, because these copies are private property. But this has
      nothing to do with copyright law.

      If you will earn
      money with free software, and you don’t fence in the code as private
      property, then you have to find other areas connected to the code,
      where you can earn money with, e.g. writing and selling the handbook
      or the support.

      That is true--as regards those who want to make money from developing
      free software. However, let's not forget that many free software
      developers work as volunteers, and probably have other jobs, which
      could be anything at all. It is a mistake to assume that developing
      free software entails making money from it.

      When I wrote about “production” I had not only in mind the
      development of software, but all branches of capitalist production.

      The Free Software Movement is not against Capitalism, and it is not
      based on Marxism. Its goals are not based on Marxist ideas, and they
      relate to issues that don't apply to most production of _goods_.
      If you generalize "production" so broadly, you're orienting the
      discussion in a direction that doesn't relate much to free software.

      Zapopan Muela
      ----------------------------- v -------------------------------
      "Tiranos y autócratas han entendido siempre que el alfabetismo,
      el conocimiento, los libros y los periódicos son un peligro
      en potencia. Pueden inculcar ideas independientes e incluso
      de rebeldía en las cabezas de sus súbditos.
      ----------------------------- v -------------------------------
      "Tyrants and autocrats have always understood that literacy,
      learning, books and newspapers are potentially dangerous.
      They can put independent and even rebelious ideas to the heads
      of their subjects."
      ----------------------------- v -------------------------------
      -- Sagan, Carl (1997). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle
      in the Dark : El mundo y sus demonios: La ciencia como una luz en la
      oscuridad. México: Planeta, p. 390; New York: Ballantine Books, p. 362.



      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.