> On May 6, 2017, at 3:47 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Robert Schmaus <robert.schm...@web.de> writes: > >>> Please cool down and stop overreacting. >> >> >> Well your statement, which - very possibly without any bad intention - >> turned around the historical facts, so admirably matched that notion >> that occasionally pops up also on this list ... namely that notion >> that everything proprietary is an attack on one's freedom. And that >> *is* paranoid.
Stallman, Lessig and the EFF all trend in that direction. There is a tendency to try to keep the notions to computer code, but there are much larger implications to the foundational notions. And sadly a certain amount of paranoia is called for in the modern information society: who has your information and what they intend to do with it are salient questions for everyone. I use Apple products because I find them practically superior to other options, but I do not trust Apple (or Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc.)- they have their interests at heart, not mine. As a result I take what steps I can to protect myself and my information. Linux creates different risks, mainly mitigated by the ultra-tiny market share, as well as a number of practical problems that I do not have the time or skills to solve. While I am sympathetic to Stallman’s and Lessig’s notions, they are not without problems. > Uh, no. That is the _definition_ of "proprietary": being not at liberty > for the taking. That does not preclude putting the respective > consequences into proper relation to one's own personal standards and > aims. This is ultimately questioning whether ownership of anything is moral, when taken to the logical conclusion. If something (whether real or conceptual) is owned by someone then it is proprietary: my house, my bank account, my car, my guitars and amps, the music I have composed and recorded/published, etc. Otherwise we end up proposing that only certain classes or types of property should be exempt from ownership, which becomes mired the very sticky set of laws that govern copyright, patents* and trademark. That is a rather larger issue than is perhaps apropos for the Lilypond mailing list, I think… Most Americans and probably most people around the world consider their right to ownership to be part of their liberty and not an infringement of liberty. *FWIW, the US government has had a law on the books since I think 1910 that allows it to claim ownership- without compensation- of the subject of any patent, if it is for the “public good”- an extension of eminent domain into so-called “intellectual property." It has been used to circumvent the cost of proprietary patented medications, for example, and may soon be used again in the state of Louisiana for treating hepatitis C. The current 12 week course of treatment costs $84,000 and Louisiana is looking to cut those costs dramatically to be able to afford to treat the thousands of its citizens on public health benefits. At the current prices, treating those patients alone would bankrupt the state; not treating them causes significant long-term health risks which are in turn expensive for the state and its taxpayers. Whether doing this increases or decreases liberty is an interesting question. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
