Re: Source Code for OS?

["Simon Biber" <simon@basilisk2.cjb.net>]

> This would be a sound example of actual stealing.
> This example would NOT apply if regardless of
> their placement on asimov, they could not be
> sold because they are 100-fold below the current
> level of functionality. You place any 1998 Mac
> software on asimov, and you will be hearing about
> it. You place any 1981 Apple Dos 3.3 software
> and you will not hear about it, except from
> nit pickers whom only know the letter-of-the-law,
> and pay no regard to the spirit (intention) of-the-law.

1980s programs can be sold, and are sold regularly. Their value is not in
the level of functionality! It makes no difference whether you get told off
by the copyright owner.

> > Yeah... I'm a legitimate owner.  Not the copyright owner, but I will
defend their
>
> The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner.

The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner of the software, true. The
end users are legitimate owners of the media, other paraphernalia, and a
license to use the software. All three of these items have value. It can be
illegal to reduce the value of something owned by someone else. But the
person who uploaded it is much more likely to be convicted for misuse of
copyrighted works than for diluting the value of the license of a particular
end-user.

> It is throughout patent law... I am not talking
> letter-of-the-law, I am talking the moral
> (intent) of the law. The moral intent of copyright
> law is to protect the ownership rights of original
> works, for a limited time so that the authors
> can be compensated for their efforts.

There is a fundamental legal difference between different forms of
Intellectual Property protection. Patents allow one to exercise a level of
control which is in my opinion excessive now that the the US office
regularly allows patents of mathematical processes and software algorithms;
things which should be free. Accordingly there are measures for deprotection
in case of abandonment (you have to be able to contact a patent holder to
negotiate licensing).

> > No, it just proved that folks will answer stuff even if it's not in the
> > appropriate newsgroup.  ;)
>
> No, in this case I was utterly proven to be
> correct, because although they were willing
> to post to the wrong group (as you suggest),
> the were unwilling to post to the right group.
> My point was to get answers you MUST
> post to the wrong groups... Following
> netiquette fails to get the required results
> ignoring netiquette gets the results, thus
> netiquette is WRONG on this point.

This is utterly stupid reasoning. Firstly, you violated Netiquette by
posting the same message in multiple groups separately. A cross-post is
allowable if it is relevant for all groups sent to, and if you send to all
groups simultaneously. This ensures that the whole thread is the same on
both groups, and that if you read the thread in one group your newsreader
marks the other one as read also.

If people replied to your message in the wrong group, then perhaps they saw
it there and didn't bother to tell you it was off-topic. In doing so they
also violated netiquette. This doesn't mean that Netiquette is wrong!

You can't tell us that they were unwilling to post to the right group. They
may not know it exists, or they may not subscribe to it.

Simon.