Re: [Fsfe-uk] Gowers Report Recommendations

[Alex Hudson]

(Apologies to Jason if you didn't want this opinion public; I'm assuming
you did ;)

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:34 +0000, Jason Clifford wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > Aside from the IP thing (which bothers me less than it does most people,
> > I think) and enforcement aspects - isn't Gowers mostly a good thing?
> 
> The reason "IP" bothers me is that language has a strong effect on 
> subsequent discussion and can help to form the way others think. By 
> refering to these disparate matters under a single banner defining them as 
> property there is a risk that you give power to the claims that violation 
> is theft rather than a matter of contract.

I totally understand the problem, and I'm probably being somewhat
hypocritical on this issue (e.g, I talk about free software, although I
don't correct those who talk about open source).

> > Having had a couple of days to chew on it, it seems to be pretty
> > progressive in it's "remember, IP is bargain not a right" position.
> > There is an awful lot of positive stuff I think we can take away from
> > it?
> 
> Certainly looks that way and I'd suggest that we need a concerted effort 
> to counter the move by publishers and large financial interests on the 
> copyright extension and patents issues. The former certainly seems urgent 
> to me.

I don't know if people have seen this, it's a great example of the
problem post-Gowers:

        http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003628.shtml

(Dead artists signing an advert calling for a copyright extension).

I totally agree with you in this respect; and I think also the Gowers
logic is pretty strong - it's a _really_ great base on which to make
noise. In many important ways, Gowers is totally in agreement with *us*
and I suspect this is why the publishers etc. are up in arms.

Cheers,

Alex.