[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy no-ip-ethos.html
|
From: |
Joakim Olsson |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy no-ip-ethos.html |
|
Date: |
Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:52:28 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Joakim Olsson <jocke> 07/03/21 19:52:28
Modified files:
philosophy : no-ip-ethos.html
Log message:
Fixed invalid HTML and updated template.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
Patches:
Index: no-ip-ethos.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- no-ip-ethos.html 6 Feb 2007 13:17:34 -0000 1.4
+++ no-ip-ethos.html 21 Mar 2007 19:52:17 -0000 1.5
@@ -1,200 +1,148 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en">
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<head>
<title>Don't Let 'Intellectual Property' Twist Your Ethos</title>
-<meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
-<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
-<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
-</head>
-
-<!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
-<!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
-<!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
-<!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
-<!-- See validator.w3.org -->
-<body>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h3>Don't Let 'Intellectual Property' Twist Your Ethos</h3>
+ <h2>Don't Let 'Intellectual Property' Twist Your Ethos</h2>
-<p>
-<a href="/graphics/philosophicalgnu.html"><img
src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg"
- alt=" [image of a Philosophical Gnu] "
- width="160" height="200" /></a>
-</p>
-
-<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a>
-<br />
-June 09, 2006
-</p>
-
-<!--<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>-->
-
-[
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical -->
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM (OR TOP) OF THE PAGE TOO! -->
- <A HREF="/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.html">English</A>
-| <A HREF="/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.fr.html">French</A>
-<!-- | A HREF="/boilerplate.LG.html" LANGUAGE /A -->
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical -->
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM (OR TOP) OF THE PAGE TOO! -->
-]
-
-<p>
-<hr />
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Most free software licenses are based on copyright law, and for good reason:
- Copyright law is much more uniform among countries than contract law, which
- is the other possible choice.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- There's another reason not to use contract law: It would require every
- distributor to get a user's formal assent to the contract before providing a
- copy. To hand someone a CD without getting his signature first would be
- forbidden. What a pain in the neck!
-</p>
-
-<p>
- It's true that in countries like China, where copyright law is generally not
- enforced, we may also have trouble enforcing free software license
agreements,
- as Heather Meeker suggests in her recent LinuxInsider column,
- <a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50421.html";>
- “Only in America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software
Model”
- </a>.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- However, this is not a reason to press for more copyright enforcement in
- China. Although we would use it to protect people's freedom, we have to
- recognize that mostly it would be used by the likes of Microsoft, Disney
- and Sony to take it away.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Ironically, we might have more success enforcing copyright in China than
- Microsoft, Disney and Sony -- because what we would want to do is easier.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Disney wishes to stamp out semi-underground organizations that sell exact
- copies. With free software, regardless of the type of license, that kind of
- copying is legal. What we want to prevent, when the free software license is
- the GNU <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>, is the
release
- of proprietary software products based on our code. That kind of abuse is at
- its worst when carried out by large, well-known companies -- and they are
- easier targets for enforcement. So GPL enforcement in China is not a lost
- cause, though it won't be easy.
-</p>
-
-<h4> No Chinese Laundry </h4>
-
-<p>
- Nonetheless, Meeker's claim that this leads to a global problem is simply
- absurd. You can't “launder” material copyrighted in the U.S.
- by moving it through China, as she ought to know.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a non-free modified version
- of GCC in the U.S., it won't make any difference if it was obtained or
- modified in China. U.S. copyright law will be enforced just the same.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Although this error might seem to be the central point of Meeker's article,
- it is not. The real central point of the article is the perspective embodied
- in her use of the term “intellectual property”. She uses this
term
- pervasively as though it refers to something coherent -- something it makes
- sense to talk about and think about. If you believe that, you have accepted
the
- article's hidden assumption.
-</p>
+ <p><a href="/graphics/philosophicalgnu.html"><img src=
+ "/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg" alt=
+ " [image of a Philosophical Gnu] " width="160" height=
+ "200" /></a></p>
+
+ <p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M.
+ Stallman</a><br />
+ June 09, 2006</p>
+
+ <hr />
+
+ <p>Most free software licenses are based on copyright law, and
+ for good reason: Copyright law is much more uniform among
+ countries than contract law, which is the other possible
+ choice.</p>
+
+ <p>There's another reason not to use contract law: It would
+ require every distributor to get a user's formal assent to the
+ contract before providing a copy. To hand someone a CD without
+ getting his signature first would be forbidden. What a pain in
+ the neck!</p>
+
+ <p>It's true that in countries like China, where copyright law is
+ generally not enforced, we may also have trouble enforcing free
+ software license agreements, as Heather Meeker suggests in her
+ recent LinuxInsider column, <a href=
+ "http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50421.html";>“Only in
+ America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software
+ Model”</a> .</p>
+
+ <p>However, this is not a reason to press for more copyright
+ enforcement in China. Although we would use it to protect
+ people's freedom, we have to recognize that mostly it would be
+ used by the likes of Microsoft, Disney and Sony to take it
+ away.</p>
+
+ <p>Ironically, we might have more success enforcing copyright in
+ China than Microsoft, Disney and Sony -- because what we would
+ want to do is easier.</p>
+
+ <p>Disney wishes to stamp out semi-underground organizations that
+ sell exact copies. With free software, regardless of the type of
+ license, that kind of copying is legal. What we want to prevent,
+ when the free software license is the GNU <a href=
+ "http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>, is the release of
+ proprietary software products based on our code. That kind of
+ abuse is at its worst when carried out by large, well-known
+ companies -- and they are easier targets for enforcement. So GPL
+ enforcement in China is not a lost cause, though it won't be
+ easy.</p>
+
+ <h4>No Chinese Laundry</h4>
+
+ <p>Nonetheless, Meeker's claim that this leads to a global
+ problem is simply absurd. You can't “launder”
+ material copyrighted in the U.S. by moving it through China, as
+ she ought to know.</p>
+
+ <p>If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a non-free
+ modified version of GCC in the U.S., it won't make any difference
+ if it was obtained or modified in China. U.S. copyright law will
+ be enforced just the same.</p>
+
+ <p>Although this error might seem to be the central point of
+ Meeker's article, it is not. The real central point of the
+ article is the perspective embodied in her use of the term
+ “intellectual property”. She uses this term
+ pervasively as though it refers to something coherent --
+ something it makes sense to talk about and think about. If you
+ believe that, you have accepted the article's hidden
+ assumption.</p>
+
+ <h4>Loose Language</h4>
+
+ <p>Sometimes Meeker switches between “intellectual
+ property” and “copyright” as if they were two
+ names for the same thing. Sometimes she switches between
+ “intellectual property” and patents as if they were
+ two names for the same thing. Having studied those two laws,
+ Meeker knows they are vastly different; all they have in common
+ is a rough sketch of their form.</p>
+
+ <p>Other “intellectual property” laws don't even
+ share that much with them. The implication that you can treat
+ them all as the same thing is fundamentally misleading.</p>
+
+ <p>Along with the term “intellectual property” goes a
+ false understanding of what these laws are for. Meeker speaks of
+ an “ethos” of “intellectual property”
+ that exists in the U.S. because “intellectual property is
+ in the Constitution.” That's the mother of all
+ mistakes.</p>
+
+ <p>What is really in the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't mention
+ “intellectual property”, and it says nothing at all
+ about most of the laws that term covers. Only two of them --
+ copyright law and patent law -- are treated there.</p>
+
+ <p>What does the Constitution say about them? What is its ethos?
+ It is nothing like the “intellectual property ethos”
+ that Meeker imagines.</p>
+
+ <h4>Failure to Execute</h4>
+
+ <p>What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent
+ law are optional. They need not exist. It says that if they do
+ exist, their purpose is to provide a public benefit -- to promote
+ progress by providing artificial incentives.</p>
+
+ <p>They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they
+ are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to
+ hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful.</p>
+
+ <p>It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress -- which has to carry it
+ out on our behalf -- takes its orders from Hollywood and
+ Microsoft instead of from us.</p>
+
+ <p>If you appreciate the U.S. Constitution's wisdom, don't let
+ “intellectual property” into your ethos; don't let
+ the “intellectual property” meme infect your
+ mind.</p>
+
+ <p>Practically speaking, copyright and patent and trademark law
+ have only one thing in common: Each is legitimate only as far as
+ it serves the public interest. Your interest in your freedom is a
+ part of the public interest that must be served.</p>
-<h4>Loose Language</h4>
-<p>
- Sometimes Meeker switches between “intellectual property” and
- “copyright” as if they were two names for the same thing.
- Sometimes she switches between “intellectual property” and
patents
- as if they were two names for the same thing. Having studied those two laws,
- Meeker knows they are vastly different; all they have in common is a rough
- sketch of their form.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Other “intellectual property” laws don't even share that much
with
- them. The implication that you can treat them all as the same thing is
- fundamentally misleading.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Along with the term “intellectual property” goes a false
- understanding of what these laws are for. Meeker speaks of an
- “ethos” of “intellectual property” that exists in
the
- U.S. because “intellectual property is in the Constitution.”
- That's the mother of all mistakes.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- What is really in the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't mention
- “intellectual property”, and it says nothing at all about most
of
- the laws that term covers. Only two of them -- copyright law and patent law
--
- are treated there.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- What does the Constitution say about them? What is its ethos? It is nothing
- like the “intellectual property ethos” that Meeker imagines.
-</p>
-
-<h4>Failure to Execute</h4>
-
-<p>
- What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are
optional.
- They need not exist. It says that if they do exist, their purpose is to
- provide a public benefit -- to promote progress by providing artificial
- incentives.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial
- privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people
- to do what we find useful.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress -- which has to carry it out on our
- behalf -- takes its orders from Hollywood and Microsoft instead of from us.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- If you appreciate the U.S. Constitution's wisdom, don't let
- “intellectual property” into your ethos; don't let the
- “intellectual property” meme infect your mind.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- Practically speaking, copyright and patent and trademark law have only one
- thing in common: Each is legitimate only as far as it serves the public
- interest. Your interest in your freedom is a part of the public interest
- that must be served.
-</p>
+</div>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div class="copyright">
-<p>
-Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
-</p>
-
+<div id="footer">
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways to
contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
@@ -202,7 +150,8 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 2006 Richard M. Stallman
+Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007 <br />
+Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
02110-1301, USA
<br />
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
@@ -211,10 +160,37 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/06 13:17:34 $ $Author: taz $
+$Date: 2007/03/21 19:52:17 $ $Author: jocke $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-
+<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
+<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
+<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
+<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
+<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.html">English</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.fr.html">Français</a></li>
<!-- French -->
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
</body>
</html>
- www/philosophy no-ip-ethos.html,
Joakim Olsson <=