You make points that are founded in pragmatism, but the fact remains: true freedom of communication (where the government isn't taxing MY ass to enforce SOMEONE ELSE'S artifical monopoly on information, ANY information) simply CANNOT be reconciled with the concept of 'intellectual property.' Philosophically speaking, the reasoning behind this is as sound as it gets, regardless of how many people it challenges intellectually...
Tmark, I'd never suggest that anyone has any obligation to release any information (including code) to anybody. However, the idea of the government enforcing your right to be the only one allowed to 'use' your code makes me sick.
Damn, well said! (Not the original, but the anonymous reply.)
I'd like to take on a couple other points that I find ridiculous.
"we have to do it this way because Intel is a bunch of fucking idiots"
We're supposed to be allowed to say that kind of thing in this country, genius!
"Further, every time somebody wants to see my source code, I find myself preparing it a little more thoroughly."
Sounds to me like an awesome incentive not to write shitty code, egomaniac! Complaining about it is like General Motors not wanting anyone to be allowed to disassemble one of their engines, out of fear that people will find out what kind of crap they've been selling us this whole time!
"...you should be looking for a new business to be in."
Well said, Weinerdog!
"But wouldn't this cause a trend of people not buying commercial software, and just waiting for them to go out of business so they could get it for free?"
Maybe, MJArrison, but that's beside the point (or certainly should be, if we're to let a [truly] free marketplace make the decisions, and not the bureaucrats or monopolists!).
"First they would have to try and FIND the source code... then if they managed to do that..."
First of all, Com2Kid, if no one can even find the source code, then it's a moot point, isn't it?!
Second, if the original IP owners actually decide to release the source, then there'd be no reason for them not to do just that (built-in copy protection and all); that's what you guys are for!
"... it often leaves behind engineers who knew the software..."
An oft-neglected point, YeOldeGnurd.
"However, if legislation... could be produced..."
Um, syrupMatt, I think not! However, if you were to suggest that a massive consolidation, or 'trimming the [rotten] fat' off current legislation is in order, I'd have to agree!
"When I was younger and less experienced in the corporate world, I'd always thought it was because corporations were made up of evil bastards who want to control everything."
Funny, mystery_bowler, it's now that I'm older that I feel the way you did then! Thing is, though, actually I'm cool with it. If society would only admit to itself that it's actually OK to try and compete with one another (Marx, are you listening?!), and wasn't in complete denial on the dubject, we would never have let ourselves become the slaves of Corporate America that we have!
"...people are afraid of rejection of their coding practices"
I think I agree with you in spirit, CDWert, but I have to question the assumption (perhaps with the except of the likes of Id and Sun) that it's even programmers making the decision. In my opinion, it's usually the unimaginative and near-sighted bean-counters upstairs...!
"...to force a chef to relinquish his recipes after he retires"
I don't believe that' an accurate comparison mickeyreznor. I'd probably phrase it this way:
"...to force a chef to publish his recipes long after he or anyone else has stopped using the recipe"
(!)Obviously, even this is flawed, which is why I don't really like the recipe analogy much to begon with...
"The support issue really never goes away."
Come one, per unit; slap a simple legalistic disclaimer on your download site and for all intents and purposes you're in the clear (or at least as in the clear as a corporate entity can be in this day and age!).
"Does he plan to make all the out of print books
text available?"
In my opinion, guerby, this begs the following question (By the way, I have no doubt that this'll piss off a lot of folks; it's not necessarily the most pleasant conclusion for those who's [current] livelihoods are at risk...) but... aren't the very concepts of "free speech," "freedom of information" and "a free market" totally and utterly mutually exclusive (and in direct opposition) to the very notion of "intellectual property?"
Slashdot Mirror
You make points that are founded in pragmatism, but the fact remains: true freedom of communication (where the government isn't taxing MY ass to enforce SOMEONE ELSE'S artifical monopoly on information, ANY information) simply CANNOT be reconciled with the concept of 'intellectual property.' Philosophically speaking, the reasoning behind this is as sound as it gets, regardless of how many people it challenges intellectually...
Tmark, I'd never suggest that anyone has any obligation to release any information (including code) to anybody. However, the idea of the government enforcing your right to be the only one allowed to 'use' your code makes me sick.
Damn, well said! (Not the original, but the anonymous reply.) I'd like to take on a couple other points that I find ridiculous. "we have to do it this way because Intel is a bunch of fucking idiots" We're supposed to be allowed to say that kind of thing in this country, genius! "Further, every time somebody wants to see my source code, I find myself preparing it a little more thoroughly." Sounds to me like an awesome incentive not to write shitty code, egomaniac! Complaining about it is like General Motors not wanting anyone to be allowed to disassemble one of their engines, out of fear that people will find out what kind of crap they've been selling us this whole time!
"...you should be looking for a new business to be in." Well said, Weinerdog! "But wouldn't this cause a trend of people not buying commercial software, and just waiting for them to go out of business so they could get it for free?" Maybe, MJArrison, but that's beside the point (or certainly should be, if we're to let a [truly] free marketplace make the decisions, and not the bureaucrats or monopolists!). "First they would have to try and FIND the source code... then if they managed to do that..." First of all, Com2Kid, if no one can even find the source code, then it's a moot point, isn't it?! Second, if the original IP owners actually decide to release the source, then there'd be no reason for them not to do just that (built-in copy protection and all); that's what you guys are for! "... it often leaves behind engineers who knew the software..." An oft-neglected point, YeOldeGnurd. "However, if legislation... could be produced..." Um, syrupMatt, I think not! However, if you were to suggest that a massive consolidation, or 'trimming the [rotten] fat' off current legislation is in order, I'd have to agree! "When I was younger and less experienced in the corporate world, I'd always thought it was because corporations were made up of evil bastards who want to control everything." Funny, mystery_bowler, it's now that I'm older that I feel the way you did then! Thing is, though, actually I'm cool with it. If society would only admit to itself that it's actually OK to try and compete with one another (Marx, are you listening?!), and wasn't in complete denial on the dubject, we would never have let ourselves become the slaves of Corporate America that we have! "...people are afraid of rejection of their coding practices" I think I agree with you in spirit, CDWert, but I have to question the assumption (perhaps with the except of the likes of Id and Sun) that it's even programmers making the decision. In my opinion, it's usually the unimaginative and near-sighted bean-counters upstairs...! "...to force a chef to relinquish his recipes after he retires" I don't believe that' an accurate comparison mickeyreznor. I'd probably phrase it this way: "...to force a chef to publish his recipes long after he or anyone else has stopped using the recipe" (!)Obviously, even this is flawed, which is why I don't really like the recipe analogy much to begon with... "The support issue really never goes away." Come one, per unit; slap a simple legalistic disclaimer on your download site and for all intents and purposes you're in the clear (or at least as in the clear as a corporate entity can be in this day and age!). "Does he plan to make all the out of print books text available?" In my opinion, guerby, this begs the following question (By the way, I have no doubt that this'll piss off a lot of folks; it's not necessarily the most pleasant conclusion for those who's [current] livelihoods are at risk...) but... aren't the very concepts of "free speech," "freedom of information" and "a free market" totally and utterly mutually exclusive (and in direct opposition) to the very notion of "intellectual property?"