gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question about GPL theft


From: mike3
Subject: Re: Question about GPL theft
Date: 21 May 2007 15:43:27 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On May 21, 2:51 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <address@hidden> wrote:
> Seg, 2007-05-21 às 13:21 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
>
> > On May 21, 8:11 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >    > You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
>
> > >    But you can still infringe the copyright.  That's what's being
> > >    discussed.
>
> > > No, what was being discussed was _stealing_ code, and you cannot do
> > > that.  If you wish to discuss copyright infrginment, then do not
> > > discuss something that does not relate to it in any remote fashion.
>
> > But usually when someone says "steal the code" it usually
> > means "infringe the copyright". The use of the term
> > "steal" may not be correct, but it is nonetless used often
> > and must be understood well in order to facilitate
> > communication.
>
> The usage of "steal" is intentional in order to create good feeling
> about the "supposed" victim and bad feeling about the "supposed"
> "robber".
>
> But what is stealing? If you have a chicken, and I take your chicken,
> that's stealing. You lost what you had.
>
> If you have a computer program, and I copy it, you did not loose your
> computer program, so there was absolutely no theft.
>

No, and that's why I don't use the term myself.

> Since there's no theft, accepting this usage of "stealing" may indicate
> you have a very harsh lack of English comprehension and should quickly
> get tuition.
>

I wouldn't use it myself, but I know what other people likely mean
when they use it.

> The fact that some "established interests" what you to drink the
> kool-aid and accept "stealing", doesn't make it true. Any half-assed
> lawyer talks about copyright infringement and not of theft, specially
> when in court. If he did talk about theft, the judge would quickly
> dismiss the case since there was no loss.
>

Which is why I don't use the term myself. But I know what people
are referring to when they use it, and so I provided what seemed
like a plausible clarification so that the essence of what was
being said could be kept in the discussion and not have things get
caught up in semantics, thereby diverting it from the topic at hand.

> So you're either sheep who eat what is fed to you, or you're
> independent. It's your choice.
>
> Rui
>
> --
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
>  signature.asc
> 1KDownload




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]