[H-GEN] Linux games are still proprietory

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 01:54:58PM +1000, Trent WADDINGTON wrote:
> I don't think unlawful copying == theft, and I don't
> think anyone can make a reasonable argument that they are the same.

I wouldn't bet on that, but it's not particularly interesting.
 
> > Well,
> > I might be wrong. Perhaps a communist reality will step up to replace our
> > capitalist reality in some if not all areas of software practice and the
> > people will themselves create the content a little at a time out of sheer
> > numbers and willpower. 

The argument for copyright isn't a capitalist versus communist one. You
can have strong property rights without copyright quite easily -- even
intellectual property rights without copyright. The difference is that
instead of saying "once you have a copy of my work, you can't make further
copies without my permission", you say "you can't get access to a copy
of my work without my permission, but once you do, you can do whatever
you want with it".

It's even possible to do business models with that philosophy: you simply
have to make sure, as an author, that you collect your profits up front
from the potential distributors, and they in turn have to make sure that
they do a good enough job at distribution that they're not going to be
undercut by competitors that'll immediately spring up.

These business models work: if they didn't, *no one* would be employed to
work on free software at all.

> The argument for ignoring a license goes something like this:
> 1) Either a license is a contract or it isn't.
> If a license is a contract,
>     2) it is a contract I did not sign,
>     3) therefore it is not valid,
>     4) so I can ignore it.
> 5) If a license is not a contract,
>     6) excluding contracts, I am not bound to anyone else's will but my
>        own,
>     7) so I can ignore it.
>
> Copyright law infringes on proposition 6, it says that even though you
> have agreed to no contract with another party they can restrict your will.

Reportedly that's not actually the case -- software licenses only come
into play, apparently, when there is an actual contract, despite what .au
copyright legislation might lead you to believe. It's not clear whether
click-wrap licenses might form a contract; but you can probably use that
cute little VB script someone wrote to avoid ever clicking on them anyway.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.humbug.org.au/pipermail/general/attachments/20030404/b0161242/attachment.sig>