On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:12:41PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > Now, this is getting dangerously close to flamebait, but Free > Software is as much to blame as anything else. =20 You make an interesting point, but hang on... [And, I don't think it's close to flame bait at all.] > If ownership is "recognize[d] as having full claim, authority, > power, dominion, etc.," then I *can't* own Free Software except for > that which I write myself and even then not always (specifically in > the case of software distributed by the FSF (I wrote pop3.el but I > don't own it (yes, RMS has the paperwork on file))),=20 Software comes under the heading of intellectual property rights, which is kind of special/weird/stupid. You automatically own whatever intellectual property you generate until you transfer those rights to someone else. You did own the rights to pop3.el until you gave them away to the FSF. Under our legal system, you may need to do special things to *protect* your right of ownership, but you still technically have it from the moment of inception. > nor can I own anything derived from Free Software. Yes, you can. You own the copyright on the portion of the code that you wrote, again, until such time as you give it away. There are numerous discussions of this around the net. This issue sometimes presents logistical problems for OSS projects, such as when a project decides it wants to change the license of its software. It can't do so without the consent of all of the copyright holders. Tracking them all down is a nightmare, and often this leads to people ignoring the issue. This is precisely why RMS demands that you transfer ownership of code intended for GNU to the FSF. Solves the problem completely. RMS may be annoying as hell, but he's also a really smart guy. You may lose some measure of control over works derived from Open Source software, but you may not! If, for example, you derive work =66rom a GPL'd piece of software, you are required to distribute said derivative work under the GPL, and thus lose some control. But you knew that in advance (or should have) so your loss of control is again voluntary. You have two other options: don't write GPL-derivative works, or don't distribute them. This is why I personally have chosen the BSD license for my open source projects. You can download my code, and do whatever you want with it, so long as you credit my contribution. I retain my right of ownership, and authors of derivative works retain theirs. To me, that's much more truly "open" than the GPL. I have no problem with the GPL, I just think it's more restrictive than I prefer. > An interesting philosophical conundrum, yes? Not really, not to me at least. If you choose to give up your right to ownership of free software that you write, you do so voluntarily. The part that's more interesting is whether or not it makes sense for thought to be considered property. Personally, I think it doesn't... thoughts have very little value unless they're shared, at which point they cease to be only your thoughts. But that presents a problem for production-of-software-as-a-product being a valid business model. That's a much more interesting conundrum, in my eyes. The issue of ownership without full control is much more relevant and interesting for ownership of tangible goods, like iPhones, DVRs, e-book readers, etc. where the owner loses (or may lose) a substantial measure of control over property that ownership implies one should have. --=20 Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result= in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.