> > You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in > > and protection of culture and science in article 27 seems pretty focused on > > public activities, not private ones. > > That’s not what I read. The point was specifically about having put labor > into something one is choosing to share, subject to terms, something which > they do not have to share, and which is not any commentary on reverse > copyright law or law of any sortt I don’t know where I’d stand on it with > respect to intellectual property, but it certainly applies to physical > property: > > This list is "license-discuss@lists.opensource.org", which suggests to me it > is about open source software licenses. This means that it is entirely about > copyright, patent, trademark, contract and any other laws that relate to > software licenses. [snip]
You made a specific claim regarding what someone else was “trying to state". I pointed out that I do not agree with that and reasons why. You’ve then replied lengthily waxing philosophical with multiple tangencies. This is not intended to insult or offend and it is admittedly a philosophical discussion, but that manner of response feels to me more like soapboxing or lecturing than discourse. > > I do not believe copyright holders have any legitimate reason to be granted > > the ability to regulate private activities, and believe the law within each > > country should clarify private activities as outside copyright. > > This is a bit of a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Some will certainly feel that > having put their own labor into making something is perfectly -legitimate- > grounds for imposing terms. That is literally the premise. > > Except, that premise has been rejected by most legal jurisdictions including > the USA and Canada. You latched onto “labor" and it was not of consequence to the point. Replace it with “skill and judgement” and the point still stands; it’s not meaningful to discuss sans creator rights. "Some will certainly feel that having put their own SKILL AND JUDGEMENT into making something is perfectly -legitimate- grounds for imposing terms.” They will obviously advocate contrary to your position, and could still be devout proponents of Open Source as the OSD does not exactly speak to this point. One could even argue or desire it a distinction between the OSI and the FSF. I’m not arguing that point, but do reject a notion that the contrary position is obviously illegitimate. It’s a complex issue. > I believe it is the attempt to use software licensing terms to regulate cloud > providers, or protect employees from unscrupulous employers, or other similar > public policy goals that gets too close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You’re welcome to your beliefs, but I don’t see logical connection — there’s nothing ad hoc about it. If anything, the attempts to use licensing or other methods to keep code in the “open” are entirely consistent with the OSD. > This conversation has many sub-threads in it, with the following being the > ones I can think of now. [snip] We come full circle to my comment about tangencies and waxing philosophical. Alas, I am not a willing audience to soapboxing, but I do wish you the best. I suspect we agree FAR more than we do not, but it’s honestly hard to tell. Cheers, Sean
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
