On 0, Antonio Rodriguez <arodriguez31@cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > >The issue is not the modification of the hardware, per se, but rather > >the data that can then be pirated after the modification is made. > >Therefore, the one alternative is to limit piracy. In order to do that, > >strict policing of data streams is necessary. > > > > > This is a logic conclusion only if you assume that you own the flow > of data. This way we will soon be policing what other people think, > because may be they are using our thoughts without paying us for > that. The whole problem boils down to the fact that we humans > believee that when we think something we own that thought. This > wrong perspective follows from a misunderstanding of what thoughts > are. We can not own thoughts the same way that we can not own the > air of the planet. However, we have already seen many who have > profitted from selling air. This point of view (of rejecting the > property of thoughts) is as defendable as the point of view of > accepting it. And it seems to be very close to the point in a > Debian/Linux mailing list. This is free software, GPL after all. Soon? Man, that's what intellectual property is all about (very nearly, anyway). The GPL does not say that nobody owns these thoughts. It is just as much a restrictive license as other licenses, its just that the restrictions are different. Instead of saying, 'You can't pass this software on. You must buy it from the source,' it says, 'You can't buy this software from the source. If you pass it on, you must make sure that the next person has the same rights you do.' The GPL is not a fundamentally different type of document from other licenses. Intellectual property rights in fact have nothing to do with the free/non-free debate. Intellectual property rights say that someone who does something has the right to reasonable profit from it, and the right to prevent other people from profiting from it. The free/non-free debate is more about consumer rights, and what rights you get when you lay down money for software. As for comparisons between thoughts and air, I'm not quite sure where you get this from, but it seems the same sort of messed-up alternative philosophy that's ended us up in this mess. When will people learn that you can't have freedom without real justice for everyone? And that justice for everyone can't be had unless you have an absolute standard of justice? > >So that is your choice: give up freedom to modify hardware, or submit > >all data moving in and out of your control to public scrutiny. Since the > >former is both distasteful and fundamentally impossible to enforce, the > >later is inevitable, IMHO. > > > > > Absolutely not. This can be only the point of view if we see the > universe as a huge shop full of merchandise. But this is far from > the way other people perceive surrounding reality. This is the sort of stuffed-up thinking that ends up with tyranny ruling all. Tom -- Tom Cook Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide "Chaos Theory is a new theory invented by scientists panicked by the thought that the public were beginning to understand the old ones." - Mike Barfield Get my GPG public key: https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au
Attachment:
pgpyXcaFnsyNz.pgp
Description: PGP signature