Yes, and this looks fine on 800x600, or on 1,024x768, or on 1,600x1,200 (okay I wouldn't actuall use full screen for my browser at theat resolution but the page fills the viewing area properl if you do want to). That's the point,it shouldn't assume that you have more than 800x600 or that you have 800x600,it should at least try to work with any plausible user settings. And this does, that's good.
In your example, if you intended to permanently deprive the owner of the BMW then this would indeed be theft. You have appropriated his property with the intention of permanently depriving him of it. The leaving of money to compensate is irrelevant, even if you left the full sale value of the car or ten times the sale value of the car, in that case the dealer might be perfectly happy and not report it but it would be theft unless he actually agreed to the bargain. Until he actualy agreed to sell you the car it would still be his property.
If you just understand that there are two elements, 1. appropriating (taking if you like) someone's property, 2. intending to permanently deprive them of it, then you should be able to understand whether something constitutes theft.
In the case of illegally copying software, the owner retains his propert throughout. In this case the property he has is the legal right to copy the software, and he retains that right intact. There is no way that you can appropriate his right other than through legal means. Equally you don't appropriate the potential sales proceeds, as the software isn't purchased the sale proveeds never become his property, any money the copier has remains theirs throughout.
Now, you might think that it is morally equivalent to theft, that's fair enough. But saying you are doing the same thing is simply untrue - the definition of theft in most jurisdictions is very clear and clearly does not cover breaches of copyright law. If you feel that describing it as "theft" is a good analogy that gets across what you see as the moral equivalence then go ahead, but when challenged you need to show that you know what you're doing "I know it's not actually theft, but I use the word as an analogy", something like that. Insisting that the other person is using an unusual definition is silly unless you can substantiate that.
If you want to use accurate experssions, then "breach of copyright", "violation of copyright laws", "illegal copying" all seem like reasonable terms.
"I repeat, having seen no sensible arguments to the contrary, my assertion that, in this case, the GPL is harming blind users. Think about this sort of scenario next time you release a new program, please. And think whether this was really what you wanted when you chose the GPL on any previous releases."
You're being silly and I'm begining to think that you're doing so deliberately. The only sense in which the GPL is "hurting the blind" is in that the code cannot be used in a proprietary project, correct? But exactly the same would be true for code released under a proprietary licence. But you don't seem to be screaming at Brett that his proprietary browser-for-the-blind project is hurting the blind, deaf, claustrophobics, or anyone else who might benefit from a project that his proprietary code can't be used in.
You seem to approve of his actions, you say "They may well be wrong, but that's their belief. It may well prove to be bad, it may well sell in low numbers and be dropped by its author. But they're trying and they cannot harm the market by trying." But the authors of GPL code are trying to do something too, and somehow you feel that they are doing harm where the proprietary authors aren't, why is that?
Of course, he might voluntarily consent to his code being used in those projects and not be subject to the normal restrcitions, but the authors of GPL'd code can do that too if they wish to. In what sense is the GPL "hurting the blind"?
You might as well turn your comments around and say that next time people publish code under a BSD licence they should consider that they might be fostering proprietary projects that impose much greater restrictions on their code and thereby "hurt the blind" and wonder whether this is what they want.
Sounds like a pretty standard definition of theft to me. In the UK (where I am) a person commits theft if he "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" (Theft Act 1968 Section 1). I believe the USA has a similar definition and I would think most other common law jurisdictions would too, if you know better please cite the relevant definition.
The "property" in this case is the legal right to copy. The owner continues to have that right, there is no way that someone can take it away from him other than by legal means. Widespread violation of this legal right might reduce the value of their property but they are not deprived of it. It is not theft.
That's not a comment on morality, not does it change the fact that breach of copyright is illlegal. But it really really really isn't theft.
"You seriously compare the release of closed-source software to violence and theft? Ouch. Do you care to explain exactly how I am harming you by releasing software as binary only?"
I agree that his analogy isn't really valid.
"I make no compulsion on you to accept the license or purchase the software."
Agreed, just like noone is forced to accept the GPL. If you want to accept the licence and copy the code / distribute derivative works subject to the licence then you can, and if you'd rather do without those rights than accept the licence terms then that's okay too. I don't understand why people have a problem with this licence who have no problem with closed source licences, it makes no sense.
"And here lies the flaw in your argument - you seem to feel that your altruism in releasing your code should be forced on others."
But he's not, he's claiming the same right to licence his code how he chooses as others have to licence theirs, what's the problem?
"True altruism should be what the GPL and associated movements are promoting - that is, selflessly giving to others without expecting anything in return."
Why "should" it be? Is this what Corel "should" also be about doing? If you want to encourage True Altruism TM then go ahead, why do you feel that others "should" be promoting your philosophy instead of their own? And no, the GPL doesn't compel others to follow its philosophy it just proposes a bargain that they can enter into or reject as they choose.
What jurisdiction are you thinking of and what do you mean when you say that minors can't "legally agree to" contracts / licences?
If I go into a shop and buy a bar of chocolate I'm entering into a contract, I doubt there are many jurisdictions that bar all minors from such transactions.
In many jurisdictions you'll find that contracts that minors enter into are voidable by the minor. That doesn't mean they can't legally enter into the contract though it can in some circumstances cause problems. I don't see how it craetes a problem with licences based on the concept of giving the right to copy based on compliance with certain conditions, in these cases voiding the contract just means that the minor no longer has the right to copy/distribute the software.
No, they can restrict their own distributing of GPL code as much as they like, they can refuse to give it to anyone at all if they want. People they do distribute GPL'd code to then have the right to distribute it to anyone else though.
"You need to fundamentally change your philosophy. You are no longer a vendor of software (ie, manufacturer) but you sell people what they really need.... quality service based on a fantastic open source product developed cooperatively over the Internet."
Ermm.. he said he was selling hardware, and seemed quite happy doing so. Why does he need to change his philosophy?
"Now, I am not religious, but I can attest to the fact that some improbable things have happened because I have "willed" them (sometimes with help) in a prayer-like manner."
Impressive. I can't help wondering though how you tested that they happened because you willed them. Presumably you've noticed that things that are improbable (in isolation) happen all the time, could you give more details on the events in question, particularly with regard to how you determined the probability and what it is that makes you think that your "willing" them to happen was decisive?
And presumably whoever moderated the mesage down thought that gave your message too high a rating based on its contents, so he moderated it down. Surely that's how the system is supposed to work. Why would "overrated" only apply where the rating was applied by a human moderator rather than through a karma score?
It's the minor who can void the contract, not the other party so this shouldn't really be an issue. But even if the other party could void the contract the same result would arise, in the absence of the GPL contract there is no right to copy the code or make derivative works, thus no problem.
If you shoplift a copy of some software you are taking the property of the shopkeeper (the physical medium that contains the software) and depriving him of it, he no longer possesses it. This is theft.
If you copy software you do NOT remove the property of the copyright owner (his property is the right to copy the software, he still has that right, your illegal copying might reduce the value of his right but does not remove it from him). This is not theft. Nothing to do with how moral it is, or whether it's legal, it's just not theft. Theft is a clearly defined crime.
If I break the windows in your house then that causes you a loss, you can probably measure it at least partly in monetary terms, and it's illegal to do that, but it isn't theft.
Legal owner suffers loss + act is illegal != theft
If a minor obtains software under GPL, he can copy it, redistribute it, create derivative works, all under the terms of the GPL.
As a minor he CAN void the contract, at which point he has no right to copy the code, create derivative works etc, and no longer has the right to distribute any previously created derivative works. It is only the contract that gives him any rights, if he tries to distribute the software or derivative works other than in accordance with the GPL then he is breaching copyright. Voiding a contract frees both parties, not only the minor.
No, whether something amounts to theft is a matter not of opinion but of law. Illegal copying of software is NOT theft. It's as simple as that. Now, if people want to use theft as a metaphor or a way of indicating their opposition to breaches of copyright law then there's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that the term is "accurate" is simply wrong.
Notions of importing and exporting have been applied to things other than physical goods for a long long time. Like insurance for example, or banking, or for that matter electricity. That aspect is nothing new in itself.
I agree with your interpretation if you're assuming that the notes were a verbatim copy of what the professor said (or in your experience wrote on a board?)
That's totally different to my experience of university though and I'm not at all convinced that you could have gained much from your experience of copying verbatim from a board. All the notes I took were er.. well, notes, my summary of what I was being taught, not transcripts of lectures, and no board involved.
Well, the advantage of having one box that translates all the way to the target language is that you don't have to persuade other people (presumably without speaking their language) to either use the other box that you carry around with you or else to go out and buy one for themselves.
It depends on whether the licence terms permit changing the licence. True public domain code or a typical BSD licence does allow incorporating the code into a produce under a different licence. Anyone using a licence that permits this is presumably willing for people to do that.
GPL does not permit this, that's the fundamental difference between GPL and BSD type licences.
"There is a big difference between the two scenarios YOU paint - but I wasn't painting a scenario at all."
Erm.. if you re-read your post you might notice the references to Silence of the Lambs. You were clearly comparing the use of psychological profiling here with its use in a criminal investigation, and implying that if people accepted the latter then thay should accept the former as well. I pointed out the differences betwen the two.
"Psychological profiling with Mosaic 2000 does not look to the "guilt" or "innocence" of anyone."
Correct. Which, as I was saying, makes it completely different to the police hunting a serial killer scenario that you brought up. You're not accusing anyone of having done anything, you're saying that statistically they might. If it was looking at guilt and innocence it would be possible to defend yourself, you can't defend yourself against a claim that you one day might be violent. And you are going to treat people differently based on the results, otherwise doing it is pointless, so yes there is soething to defend yourself against, whether it's punishment, surveilance or "treatment".
I don't understand the relevance of the example you give of someone you knew who threatened violent action. If you knew that information toput into the program you'd already have reason to check into the situation, but good reason not just a statistical correlation.
"Of course, most cases of derangemant are not that obvious. But many are more obvious than it is popular to think ("I never would have suspected" is a more likely headline than "Yeah, we knew they were psycho shit-for-brains, but what could we do?" says High School Superintendant.), and any tools that help identify the not-so-obvious cases should be welcomed."
So suppose we have a non-obvious case, or more precisely a person. He hasn't been violent in the past, he isn't threatening violence now, but his likes and dislikes, his interests and hobbies, his affectations have a statistical correlation to those of some serial killers. What are you sugesting is done to/with/about him?
There is a big difference between the two scenarios.
In one scenario someone has committed a crime, presumably a serious one. The aim of profiling is to narrow down the potential suspects (like, it could be anyone) to a list that can realistically be investigated. If they produce a list of 1,000 people who fit their profile of the culprit and then with further investigation it's gradually narrowed down to one who is shown to be guilty then presumably the list of 1,000 is filed and forgotten. The reamining 999 people are innocent of the crime, no problem.
In the second scenario, it's a case of profiling people on the basis that no crime has been committed. You never eliminate them from having committed a particular crime, they can never claer their names, because no crime is being investigated. However long they continue to not behave violently your program is still sat there saying that one day they might.
You get your list of 1,000 who may one day do something terrible, or of course might not, and then what do you do? Spy on them? Segregate them? If you're not going to treat them differently to everyone else what use is the information at all?
The actual number isn't important, whether you've picked out 1,000 people or 10 or 1 who have done nothing so far as anyone can, how do you justify treating them differently to everyone else on the basis of what your clever little program has said they statistically might do? Especially since anyone else might do those things, just your program says the statistical probability is less.
It's one step further than thought crime though, it's "okay maybe he hasn't even thought it yet, but statistically there's a good chance he'll think of it one day"-crime.
"for the purposes of the law the corporation is ONE entity and they have as much right to restrict their employees with NDAs and draconian penalties as you have the right to insist that your left ankle not release your GPLed code until you're ready to do so."
Yes, in the eyes of the law a corporation is indeed a single entity. And every one of its employees, its directors, its shareholders, any agents it uses is another legal entity separate from the corporation.
You're writing as though the corporation is one entity synonymous with the agents through which it acts, and that's exactly the opposite of the case, it is an entity that exists separately from them in the eyes of the law.
At the risk of stating the obvious, if the corporation wasn't a separate entity to the employees to with whom you suggest it could enter into an NDA then the NDA would be worth precisely nothing, you can't enter into a contract with yourself and you can't sue yourself. The whole point of such an agree is that they ARE separate entities.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and this looks fine on 800x600, or on 1,024x768, or on 1,600x1,200 (okay I wouldn't actuall use full screen for my browser at theat resolution but the page fills the viewing area properl if you do want to). That's the point,it shouldn't assume that you have more than 800x600 or that you have 800x600,it should at least try to work with any plausible user settings. And this does, that's good.
In your example, if you intended to permanently deprive the owner of the BMW then this would indeed be theft. You have appropriated his property with the intention of permanently depriving him of it. The leaving of money to compensate is irrelevant, even if you left the full sale value of the car or ten times the sale value of the car, in that case the dealer might be perfectly happy and not report it but it would be theft unless he actually agreed to the bargain. Until he actualy agreed to sell you the car it would still be his property.
If you just understand that there are two elements, 1. appropriating (taking if you like) someone's property, 2. intending to permanently deprive them of it, then you should be able to understand whether something constitutes theft.
In the case of illegally copying software, the owner retains his propert throughout. In this case the property he has is the legal right to copy the software, and he retains that right intact. There is no way that you can appropriate his right other than through legal means. Equally you don't appropriate the potential sales proceeds, as the software isn't purchased the sale proveeds never become his property, any money the copier has remains theirs throughout.
Now, you might think that it is morally equivalent to theft, that's fair enough. But saying you are doing the same thing is simply untrue - the definition of theft in most jurisdictions is very clear and clearly does not cover breaches of copyright law. If you feel that describing it as "theft" is a good analogy that gets across what you see as the moral equivalence then go ahead, but when challenged you need to show that you know what you're doing "I know it's not actually theft, but I use the word as an analogy", something like that. Insisting that the other person is using an unusual definition is silly unless you can substantiate that.
If you want to use accurate experssions, then "breach of copyright", "violation of copyright laws", "illegal copying" all seem like reasonable terms.
"I repeat, having seen no sensible arguments to the contrary, my assertion that, in this case, the GPL is harming blind users. Think about this sort of scenario next time you release a new program, please. And think whether this was really what you wanted when you chose the GPL on any previous releases."
You're being silly and I'm begining to think that you're doing so deliberately. The only sense in which the GPL is "hurting the blind" is in that the code cannot be used in a proprietary project, correct? But exactly the same would be true for code released under a proprietary licence. But you don't seem to be screaming at Brett that his proprietary browser-for-the-blind project is hurting the blind, deaf, claustrophobics, or anyone else who might benefit from a project that his proprietary code can't be used in.
You seem to approve of his actions, you say "They may well be wrong, but that's their belief. It may well prove to be bad, it may well sell in low numbers and be dropped by its author. But they're trying and they cannot harm the market by trying." But the authors of GPL code are trying to do something too, and somehow you feel that they are doing harm where the proprietary authors aren't, why is that?
Of course, he might voluntarily consent to his code being used in those projects and not be subject to the normal restrcitions, but the authors of GPL'd code can do that too if they wish to. In what sense is the GPL "hurting the blind"?
You might as well turn your comments around and say that next time people publish code under a BSD licence they should consider that they might be fostering proprietary projects that impose much greater restrictions on their code and thereby "hurt the blind" and wonder whether this is what they want.
Sounds like a pretty standard definition of theft to me. In the UK (where I am) a person commits theft if he "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" (Theft Act 1968 Section 1). I believe the USA has a similar definition and I would think most other common law jurisdictions would too, if you know better please cite the relevant definition.
The "property" in this case is the legal right to copy. The owner continues to have that right, there is no way that someone can take it away from him other than by legal means. Widespread violation of this legal right might reduce the value of their property but they are not deprived of it. It is not theft.
That's not a comment on morality, not does it change the fact that breach of copyright is illlegal. But it really really really isn't theft.
"You seriously compare the release of closed-source software to violence and theft? Ouch. Do you care to explain exactly how I am harming you by releasing software as binary only?"
I agree that his analogy isn't really valid.
"I make no compulsion on you to accept the license or purchase the software."
Agreed, just like noone is forced to accept the GPL. If you want to accept the licence and copy the code / distribute derivative works subject to the licence then you can, and if you'd rather do without those rights than accept the licence terms then that's okay too. I don't understand why people have a problem with this licence who have no problem with closed source licences, it makes no sense.
"And here lies the flaw in your argument - you seem to feel that your altruism in releasing your code should be forced on others."
But he's not, he's claiming the same right to licence his code how he chooses as others have to licence theirs, what's the problem?
"True altruism should be what the GPL and associated movements are promoting - that is, selflessly giving to others without expecting anything in return."
Why "should" it be? Is this what Corel "should" also be about doing? If you want to encourage True Altruism TM then go ahead, why do you feel that others "should" be promoting your philosophy instead of their own? And no, the GPL doesn't compel others to follow its philosophy it just proposes a bargain that they can enter into or reject as they choose.
What jurisdiction are you thinking of and what do you mean when you say that minors can't "legally agree to" contracts / licences?
/distribute the software.
If I go into a shop and buy a bar of chocolate I'm entering into a contract, I doubt there are many jurisdictions that bar all minors from such transactions.
In many jurisdictions you'll find that contracts that minors enter into are voidable by the minor. That doesn't mean they can't legally enter into the contract though it can in some circumstances cause problems. I don't see how it craetes a problem with licences based on the concept of giving the right to copy based on compliance with certain conditions, in these cases voiding the contract just means that the minor no longer has the right to copy
No, they can restrict their own distributing of GPL code as much as they like, they can refuse to give it to anyone at all if they want. People they do distribute GPL'd code to then have the right to distribute it to anyone else though.
"You need to fundamentally change your philosophy. You are no longer a vendor of software (ie, manufacturer) but you sell people what they really need .... quality service based on a fantastic open source product developed cooperatively over the Internet."
Ermm.. he said he was selling hardware, and seemed quite happy doing so. Why does he need to change his philosophy?
"Now, I am not religious, but I can attest to the fact that some improbable things have happened because I have "willed" them (sometimes with help) in a prayer-like manner."
Impressive. I can't help wondering though how you tested that they happened because you willed them. Presumably you've noticed that things that are improbable (in isolation) happen all the time, could you give more details on the events in question, particularly with regard to how you determined the probability and what it is that makes you think that your "willing" them to happen was decisive?
And presumably whoever moderated the mesage down thought that gave your message too high a rating based on its contents, so he moderated it down. Surely that's how the system is supposed to work. Why would "overrated" only apply where the rating was applied by a human moderator rather than through a karma score?
It's the minor who can void the contract, not the other party so this shouldn't really be an issue. But even if the other party could void the contract the same result would arise, in the absence of the GPL contract there is no right to copy the code or make derivative works, thus no problem.
If you shoplift a copy of some software you are taking the property of the shopkeeper (the physical medium that contains the software) and depriving him of it, he no longer possesses it. This is theft.
If you copy software you do NOT remove the property of the copyright owner (his property is the right to copy the software, he still has that right, your illegal copying might reduce the value of his right but does not remove it from him). This is not theft. Nothing to do with how moral it is, or whether it's legal, it's just not theft. Theft is a clearly defined crime.
If I break the windows in your house then that causes you a loss, you can probably measure it at least partly in monetary terms, and it's illegal to do that, but it isn't theft.
Legal owner suffers loss + act is illegal != theft
Clear?
Obviously this varies with jurisdiction but :
If a minor obtains software under GPL, he can copy it, redistribute it, create derivative works, all under the terms of the GPL.
As a minor he CAN void the contract, at which point he has no right to copy the code, create derivative works etc, and no longer has the right to distribute any previously created derivative works. It is only the contract that gives him any rights, if he tries to distribute the software or derivative works other than in accordance with the GPL then he is breaching copyright. Voiding a contract frees both parties, not only the minor.
This creates no problems for the GPL.
No, whether something amounts to theft is a matter not of opinion but of law. Illegal copying of software is NOT theft. It's as simple as that. Now, if people want to use theft as a metaphor or a way of indicating their opposition to breaches of copyright law then there's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that the term is "accurate" is simply wrong.
If the cabinet were interfering in an ongoing investigation, let alone an actual court case, I'd be astonished if they admitted it.
Notions of importing and exporting have been applied to things other than physical goods for a long long time. Like insurance for example, or banking, or for that matter electricity. That aspect is nothing new in itself.
I agree with your interpretation if you're assuming that the notes were a verbatim copy of what the professor said (or in your experience wrote on a board?)
That's totally different to my experience of university though and I'm not at all convinced that you could have gained much from your experience of copying verbatim from a board. All the notes I took were er.. well, notes, my summary of what I was being taught, not transcripts of lectures, and no board involved.
Well, the advantage of having one box that translates all the way to the target language is that you don't have to persuade other people (presumably without speaking their language) to either use the other box that you carry around with you or else to go out and buy one for themselves.
And if you're a good little Government department, you might even settle because you have other offenders to go after too and limited resources.
I'm not advocating that they should, just that if they can get a good enough settlement they should, not keep going out of bloody mindedness.
It depends on whether the licence terms permit changing the licence. True public domain code or a typical BSD licence does allow incorporating the code into a produce under a different licence. Anyone using a licence that permits this is presumably willing for people to do that.
GPL does not permit this, that's the fundamental difference between GPL and BSD type licences.
"There is a big difference between the two scenarios YOU paint - but I wasn't painting a scenario at all."
Erm.. if you re-read your post you might notice the references to Silence of the Lambs. You were clearly comparing the use of psychological profiling here with its use in a criminal investigation, and implying that if people accepted the latter then thay should accept the former as well. I pointed out the differences betwen the two.
"Psychological profiling with Mosaic 2000 does not look to the "guilt" or "innocence" of anyone."
Correct. Which, as I was saying, makes it completely different to the police hunting a serial killer scenario that you brought up. You're not accusing anyone of having done anything, you're saying that statistically they might. If it was looking at guilt and innocence it would be possible to defend yourself, you can't defend yourself against a claim that you one day might be violent. And you are going to treat people differently based on the results, otherwise doing it is pointless, so yes there is soething to defend yourself against, whether it's punishment, surveilance or "treatment".
I don't understand the relevance of the example you give of someone you knew who threatened violent action. If you knew that information toput into the program you'd already have reason to check into the situation, but good reason not just a statistical correlation.
"Of course, most cases of derangemant are not that obvious. But many are more obvious than it is popular to think ("I never would have suspected" is a more likely headline than "Yeah, we knew they were psycho shit-for-brains, but what could we do?" says High School Superintendant.), and any tools that help identify the not-so-obvious cases should be welcomed."
So suppose we have a non-obvious case, or more precisely a person. He hasn't been violent in the past, he isn't threatening violence now, but his likes and dislikes, his interests and hobbies, his affectations have a statistical correlation to those of some serial killers. What are you sugesting is done to/with/about him?
There is a big difference between the two scenarios.
In one scenario someone has committed a crime, presumably a serious one. The aim of profiling is to narrow down the potential suspects (like, it could be anyone) to a list that can realistically be investigated. If they produce a list of 1,000 people who fit their profile of the culprit and then with further investigation it's gradually narrowed down to one who is shown to be guilty then presumably the list of 1,000 is filed and forgotten. The reamining 999 people are innocent of the crime, no problem.
In the second scenario, it's a case of profiling people on the basis that no crime has been committed. You never eliminate them from having committed a particular crime, they can never claer their names, because no crime is being investigated. However long they continue to not behave violently your program is still sat there saying that one day they might.
You get your list of 1,000 who may one day do something terrible, or of course might not, and then what do you do? Spy on them? Segregate them? If you're not going to treat them differently to everyone else what use is the information at all?
The actual number isn't important, whether you've picked out 1,000 people or 10 or 1 who have done nothing so far as anyone can, how do you justify treating them differently to everyone else on the basis of what your clever little program has said they statistically might do? Especially since anyone else might do those things, just your program says the statistical probability is less.
It's one step further than thought crime though, it's "okay maybe he hasn't even thought it yet, but statistically there's a good chance he'll think of it one day"-crime.
"for the purposes of the law the corporation is ONE entity and they have as much right to restrict their employees with NDAs and draconian penalties as you have the right to insist that your left ankle not release your GPLed code until you're ready to do so."
Yes, in the eyes of the law a corporation is indeed a single entity. And every one of its employees, its directors, its shareholders, any agents it uses is another legal entity separate from the corporation.
You're writing as though the corporation is one entity synonymous with the agents through which it acts, and that's exactly the opposite of the case, it is an entity that exists separately from them in the eyes of the law.
At the risk of stating the obvious, if the corporation wasn't a separate entity to the employees to with whom you suggest it could enter into an NDA then the NDA would be worth precisely nothing, you can't enter into a contract with yourself and you can't sue yourself. The whole point of such an agree is that they ARE separate entities.
"You're free to say that's a good thing. Your not free to say without rebutal that you are being altruistic."
If he does what he is believes is a good thing, why do you feel that he is not acting altruistically?