Ownership in Software

Rui Miguel Seabra rms at 1407.org
Thu Apr 22 19:23:49 UTC 2004

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 21:03 +0200, Axel Schulz wrote:
> > I hope you agree with at least some of the points. So now it's up to
> > you to provide a definition where the "owner"'s rights should end.
> > Just saying the "owner" can put any conditions on the recipient
> > would deny all of the above rights.
> That is impossible for me. These are legal questions.

Then stick to law and common terminology instead of inventing your own
terms. You don't own works under copyright. You own THE COPYRIGHT
because you are THE AUTHOR. But you DON'T OWN the work.

Any honest lawyer (yes, this is not an oxymoron) could explain you that.

>  I just want to see if a general right can be defended.

Copyright in general can be defended. Some, though, are trying to extend
copyright into undefendable and uncomprmising positions. These are the
same who try to create the illusion that the author owns the work and
just licences it in order to justify ever harsher actions:

    Like putting the FBI after kids in schools

This is simply unacceptable. Shouldn't the FBI be after internal

>  Besides, what you list here would be
> effects of ownership. Law (social institutions)  may constitute restrictions
> or dissallow ownership in software at all, even it has some moral force,
> and that is what I am looking for.

You are leading nowhere. You make statements without fundament, and keep
talking about ownership of works.

> (1) Stallman and you:
> owners != authors
> software should NOT have owners
> software should have authors

> (2) Me:
> owners = authors
> software should have owners
> software should have authors
> (3) Your conclusion: 
> software should NOT have authors

Are intentionally lying? Because now it seems so. Sorry.

> This doesn't derive! You cannot take my premiss (owners = authors)
> and applied it to Stallman's (owners != authors). If you do this,
> you get this result. Am I wrong? I am not that good in logic.

No you're not. A basic rule of logic is:
  * you can derive anything from the absurd

You start from absurd premises, you naturally get to faulty conclusions.

> The premiss is the foundational for the statements. Why I take this
> premiss did I explain in earlier mails.
> What botheres ne is to decide is if (2) can be justified.

Your indecision comes from the fact that it makes no sense. Your
subsconscious self knows this perfectly well, you're just refusing to
see the truth.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20040422/a49ae805/attachment.sig>

More information about the Discussion mailing list