Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

[Jean-Christophe Helary <fusion@example.com>]

On 7 janv. 07, at 16:23, Curt Sampson wrote:

> > Freeing software is a political move to refuse to make code a simple
> > commodity, and places code at a much higher level: common knowledge
> > for the benefit of all. It is a very important and profound concept.
>
> So a question: does putting software in the public domain, and working
> to ensure that it's easily available to anybody who cares to get  
> it, do
> the same thing? Does it do it to the same degree?

The public domain is yet another thing. In public domain there is no  
copyright per definition. Plus it is extremely difficult to actually  
_put_ something in the public domain since _any_ intellectual work is  
considered to automatically generate copyright.

Public domain works have no restriction whatsoever for use.  
Plagiarism cannot be punished. Other abuses can't either. Although  
that needs to be tested in courts, it would be technically possible  
to put a new copyright on a public domain work (partial or total)  
since nobody protects the non-existing original copyright. The author  
does not have the right to license the use of the work.

On the other side, any distributed "intellectual activity" can be  
considered as copyrighted work and is basically protected by  
copyright law. Even what you and I write here is. Depending on the  
work, it is either protected by basic copyright law only, or by  
copyright law plus licensing agreements.

> It seems to me indisputable (although again, I'm willing to listen to
> refutations) that a software author has a lot more freedom when using
> a piece of BSD-licensed code than he does when using a piece of GPL'd
> code.

Sure, and it is also possible to say that in a world where stealing  
is not a crime punished by law, people have more freedom than us.

But the point is not here. The point is that the GPL grants a  
_transmission_ of freedom. The GPL considers that what is important  
is not the freedom of the individual programmer or distributor, but  
the freedom of the end user granted by the original authors. The GPL  
makes sure that there are no possible ways that and intermediate  
actor locks end-users in closed code.

> > The decision to GPL code is a very strong statement _against_ the
> > commodification of intellectual work.
>
> You'll have to explain to me what this means. Viewing the statement
> using the sense of "commodification" in economic terms, where goods  
> from
> different producers are fungible, doesn't really seem to generate a
> plausable argument.

From Wikipedia:

> In Marxist political economy, commodification takes place when  
> economic value is assigned to something that traditionally would  
> not be considered in economic terms, for example, an idea,  
> identity, gender. For instance, sex becomes a marketed commodity,  
> something to be bought and sold rather than freely exchanged. Human  
> beings can be considered subject to commodification in contexts  
> such as genetic engineering, cloning, eugenics, social darwinism,  
> Fascism, mass marketing and employment.

> Looking back,
>
> > Also, I think GPL is a very good way to resist the computer
> > Alpop-culture that an Kay refers to in his interviews.
>
> Though I know Kay, I don't know what 'Alpop' culture is.

A typing glitch. "pop-culture".

JC