Re: [LAD] RAUL?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Fons Adriaensen <fons@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - 11:29 am

--f46d04447429aab59804b1d868b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hey Fons!

I agree with the fact that your code took lots of time, effort and knowledge
to write. I would however question the obligation of other people to pay you
unless before making your work available to them you have made a contract
with them, in which case this is just work for hire.

If, I argue, you have made your work public, then nobody made a contract
with
you. Simply speaking, nobody asked you to do the work you did. But once it
is
available publicly, I do not see on what grounds you can demand payment.

Notice the words "obligation" and "demands" there. I am not at all saying
one
should not be grateful and/or not be able to pay you willingly.

So my message is that if the work is made public, then nobody should be
obliged
to pay for using that work.

What copyright law does is create a default contract between anyone doing
the work
and the whole public. That contract is enforced on the public. They did not
ask for it,
nor do they have a chance to negotiate it.
And in this light GPL and CC licenses are really *a license on top of a
license* -
basically, things which take the default public contract which is the
copyright law
and scratch out several lines out of it.

This is why I cal GPL and CC a lesser evil. It is a good thing, because it
is a battle
for freedom, but it is evil because it "accepts" the framework of the
enforced contract,
which is the copyright law. It does not accept it willingly, so GPL and CC
are doing good
things in this world, but I do not believe that GPL and CC are an ideal
towards which we
should go. I believe that the better situation would be the absence of
copyright law.

--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/

--f46d04447429aab59804b1d868b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Fons!I agree with the fact that your code took lots of time, ef=
fort and knowledgeto write. I would however question the obligation of =
other people to pay youunless before making your work available to them=
you have made a contract
with them, in which case this is just work for hire.If, I argue, yo=
u have made your work public, then nobody made a contract withyou. Simp=
ly speaking, nobody asked you to do the work you did. But once it is
available publicly, I do not see on what grounds you can demand payment.Notice the words "obligation" and "demands" there.=
I am not at all saying oneshould not be grateful and/or not be able to=
pay you willingly.
So my message is that if the work is made public, then nobody should be=
obligedto pay for using that work.What copyright law does is c=
reate a default contract between anyone doing the workand the whole pub=
lic. That contract is enforced on the public. They did not ask for it,
nor do they have a chance to negotiate it.And in this light GPL and CC =
licenses are really a license on top of a license -basically, th=
ings which take the default public contract which is the copyright law
and scratch out several lines out of it.This is why I=
cal GPL and CC a lesser evil. It is a good thing, because it is a battlefor freedom, but it is evil because it "accepts" the framework =
of the enforced contract,
which is the copyright law. It does not accept it willingly, so GPL and CC =
are doing goodthings in this world, but I do not believe that GPL and C=
C are an ideal towards which weshould go. I believe that the better sit=
uation would be the absence of copyright law.
-- Louigi Veronahttp://=
www.louigiverona.ru/

--f46d04447429aab59804b1d868b4--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:58 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Robillard, (Mon Nov 14, 4:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Mon Nov 14, 10:11 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Robillard, (Mon Nov 14, 4:38 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Tue Nov 15, 2:10 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Tristan Matthews, (Tue Nov 15, 3:19 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Tue Nov 15, 12:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Tue Nov 15, 4:20 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Tue Nov 15, 8:42 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Wed Nov 16, 12:48 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 6:15 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 10:38 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 10:40 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 11:16 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Pedro Alves, (Wed Nov 16, 1:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 11:29 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 11:42 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 11:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 2:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 2:27 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 10:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Wed Nov 16, 8:33 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Wed Nov 16, 7:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Wed Nov 16, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 8:53 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 9:43 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 9:57 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Olofson, (Wed Nov 16, 12:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 1:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Olofson, (Wed Nov 16, 2:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, hermann, (Wed Nov 16, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 6:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Dominique Michel, (Thu Nov 17, 1:11 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Thu Nov 17, 4:44 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, thijs van severen, (Fri Nov 18, 6:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 10:35 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Dominique Michel, (Wed Nov 16, 5:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 8:29 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Tristan Matthews, (Wed Nov 16, 7:15 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Tue Nov 15, 2:57 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:12 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Paul Davis, (Mon Nov 14, 6:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:45 pm)