On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Terry Hancock wrote: > The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works > which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the > work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works > whose principle value is in how they are used. > > If the principle value of gcc were its aesthetic appeal (e.g. you like > to wallpaper your room with the printout), then it's the same as an > aesthetic work like a movie or a song. > > By contrast, there are almost no such "uses" of a movie or a song. > They are meant to be rendered to the human senses and appreciated > for their own content. > > This is a real distinction.
Except that it's not. There is no hard delineation between "utilitarian" works and "aesthetic" works. If I have no use for gcc's utilitarian role, and find it aesthetically pleasing for whatever reason, that's as valid as your purely utilitarian role for it. Likewise there are many "utilitarian" uses for movies or songs. I know of many movies that I've watched and songs which I have listened to which have altered the way I think or feel about specific subjects. They were designed in no small part to have exactly that effect upon people. You are traversing the same argument as litigation on pornography versus art has traversed, which ultimately terminates in the handwaving "I know it when I see it" or the even less penetrable "what the artist says it is." When is a urinal not a urinal? > the inability to access utilitarian works only implies the need to > create free ones, and has little or no cultural consequences. I would think that Debian itself not existing would be a profound cultural consequence to most of us participating on this list. > In fact, free licensing is an adequate solution for utilitarian > works, but in the end, only better copyright law can fully resolve > the problem for aesthetic works. Why? More importantly, what does this have to do with the works that we distribute within Debian? If a work is actually being distributed within Debian, then I submit that it must fill some sort of utilitarian role. Something must use it in order to produce some functionality or appearance. If it doesn't, then it has no business bloating the archive and being distributed by our mirror network. If that's the case, then we must be able to take the work, modify it, and redistribute it in order to enable our users to do what they need to do. If the copyright holder is withholding information that could be theoretically distributed by us which is necessary to modify the work, then we are not able to execute the tenets of our social contract. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
