[ This is a test blog, with posts about the development of b2, and comments ]
[ Bugs/suggestions ? Check the Forums ! ]
This article by Beale Screamer
is absolutely correct. I quote from here: Copyright was created as a policy that balanced the interests of authors, publishers, and readers. It was not intended to be a restrictive property right.
That's right, Michel -- you can put copyright signs, protect your code, demand for credit, but the original copyright laws say you can't. The end user can control whatever he wants. No one can stop him, even from making an exact copy, especially intellectual property -- and you can't say 'stolen' either. Microsoft managed to exploit this loophole when copyright wasn't such a big thing -- if Microsoft did it yesterday, it'd be bankrupt. Bankrupt.
Is plagiarism wrong? Yes. But you can't stop it, Michel.
@ 10:44:24 822
, no trackback
, no pingback
michel v - email - url
It's not about making copies, giving credits, or all that shabang. PLEASE do not bring that issue here again, or I'll simply use the delete link. It is about claiming rights on MY work, and making it appear like THEY are those who coded, who listened to the users, who spent hours on tiny little bugs, who did personal support more than I can count. It is just wrong. Of course I can't stop them from doing it. It doesn't mean I should sit down and let it happen.
Again, I'm nobody's free coder. The fact I provide this code for free doesn't mean I hand over the ownership and my intellectual property rights of it. I don't know how fucked up the intellectual property systems have gotten in US and Singapore, but in France the words 'original author' have still a meaning.
31.10.01 @ 20:17:31 220
Trace - email - url
There are some good points in the article, I'll give him that. But, someone lauding back to the days of the original copyright is ridiculous. When copyright was originally introduced, it's creators had no idea what was going to come next. Like everything else, law must evolve to fit our society. It must expand to incorporate new and constantly changing technologies.
And on the side of the authors - If everyone took the attitude that copyright is there to be broken, why would anyone create anything? There would be no free programs such as this. The only new products would be from big companies who are able to charge a fortune and maintain their customer base. If authors/programmers/the average joe on the street didn't have the power to be able to create something and say "I did that. It's mine", then where would be the incentive?
Michel is more than willing to let us fiddle with his code. He's more than willing to let us come up with hacks. He's not providing the program with huge restrictions, nor is he asking for money. He's always there to help sort out problems and fix bugs as they appear (which is more than I can say for a lot of other programs that have been released). How wrong is it for him to expect that his copyright notice stays in tact? And whether someone (who states plainly that he's not a lawyer, and that his 'personal opinion' should not be considered as precendent) thinks it is right or wrong, Michel does have the right to do something about it when his copyright is breached.
31.10.01 @ 21:09:29 256
:: leave a comment