[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Monday 11 October 2004 3:42 pm, Alex Charrett wrote:
Quoting Neil Williams:Nobody owns software, least of all the author. Nobody has the right to stop me getting a copy of any software freely. Code is NOT a material object and cannot be considered alongside physical objects that require materials to be consumed by production. Rules that apply to a car or a sandwich do NOT apply to speech or code.I'm sorry, but much as I agree with many of the principles of liberty (I'm avoiding using the word free on purpose, it's causing too much confusion) and openness this seems ridiculous!
I firmly believe that software is not owned. It is authored and that is the process you describe below, but authorship does not bring the privilege of ownership. It's a fine distinction but it has powerful repercussions.
If I program some code, it's entirley my choice as to what I do with it.
True.
It's mine.
Not once published. When I have a copy of your code, that copy is mine. It does not reduce the integrity of your copy, but equally neither is actually the original. Each is a copy of the other. For one to be an original and one a copy there would need to be some kind of watermark/hallmark or other indelible mark on the original that is not copied. Take pictures (real ones, art, in oil/watercolour etc.). The original is a physical object, it exists in 3D. If you're lucky or it's cheap you can hold it in your hands. Taking a copy of it requires a separate process that produces a subtly different version. A print from a masterpiece never sells for the same price as the original masterpiece. However, a copy of a digital image of that masterpiece is absolutely and precisely an identical object to the original digital image. There is no way of telling one from another except possibly the physical location of one file compared to another. e.g. The copy on your workstation can be easily identified as the original IF the workstation can be identified as belonging to the recognised author. It has nothing to do with the bytes themselves, only the path/location. My software on SourceForge - take a real example. I have all rights to all files for that project that are on my home system. If I delete all of those or change them all, nobody can say stop. Who owns the files on SourceForge? Nobody. SourceForge own the hardware but they don't claim authorship so all they have is a copy. As has Robin and anyone else who downloads the tarball. Extend that to Debian. My code contributed to GnuCash will hopefully make it into the 1.8.10 or 1.9 release of GnuCash which will then wind it's way onto the Debian mirrors. I own the qof_book_merge.c file that sits on this system. Who owns the qof_book_merge.c file that sits on the system of the Debian developer responsible for packaging GnuCash? Authorship != ownership. If I owned all the files I'd created, I would be able to delete any that I wanted - no matter whose system they are currently on. I don't think Robin would give me permission to delete 'my' files from HIS systems!
The way I release it, either GPL (as I am likley to do) is entirley my perogative.
True. That's part of authorship.
I'm also entirley entitled to not release it like that. You may disagree with that decision as you are entitled to do, but you can't tell me that the code I have written isn't mine.
Authorship != ownership. Obviously your authorship is maintained, that's what copyright is for, but copyright does NOT give you rights over COPIES. That would be a role for the owner and it does not have an owner.
Other people may use / modify it but it doesn't change the fact that the original code is mine.
True - but there is nothing to say that your COPY is actually the original. Your authorship makes that clear, but the code itself - in terms of the actual bytes on the filesystem - cannot be distinguished from a copy.
Just because we are free to express opinions doesn't mean we can go round making false statements. If someone was to go round claiming I said something I didn't, I have the right to recourse, such as accusing them of slander. Do you not hear often that "You own your words"?
I haven't heard that quote myself - I understand the meaning though. It's talking of authorship. If those words are still the property of the original speaker, you wouldn't be able to quote them because that would be an unauthorised copy. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.codehelp.co.uk/ http://www.dclug.org.uk/ http://www.isbn.org.uk/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00029.pgp
Description: PGP signature