Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Dave Searles on 12 Oct 2009 19:39 Alessio Stalla wrote: > On Oct 11, 2:31 pm, Joost Kremers <joostkrem...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> The point is, don't use your fucked up country's laws in discussions >>> about what is right. >> You seem to be forgetting that copyright law is also a law. You seem to claim >> that the rights that copyright law provides for creators and consumers form a >> *moral* basis, but it's just a law. > > Every rule we are required to obey to is a law. Being a law does not > make a rule be "good". > However, copyright law is generally thought as "good" because (if done > right) it properly balances the rights of two opposing forces, and by > doing so it benefits society as a whole. That's the theory. In practice, it seems to do nothing of the sort. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091007/2131526454.shtml "... the goal of copyright should be maximizing the creation of content overall, such that everyone is better off." Furthermore, mounting evidence indicates that the amount of copyright that maximizes the creation of content is ... (drumroll) ... zero. http://www.againstmonopoly.org/ http://www.questioncopyright.org/ >> But ok, let's discuss this from the point of right and wrong. I personally feel >> that someone who develops a creative work, whether literature, music, or a piece >> of software, has the moral right to decide how others use their work. If I don't >> like their conditions, I have the freedom not to buy a copy of the work in >> question.[1] > > Ask yourself: why treating creative work differently than other kinds > of work? Is a car maker allowed to forbid you certain uses of the car > he sold you? My answer is no, for if he was allowed, a basic right of > mine (to do what I want with my property, as long as I respect the > law) would be seriously undermined, and what's worse, it would be > undermined by a private subject that it has NOT been elected. Sure, I > could avoid buying that particular car; but what if all car makers > imposed similar restrictions? No, thanks, it's too dangerous. This I wholeheartedly agree with. > The *only* thing in my opinion that makes creative work different is > the ease of copying it, and copyright law exists (or should exist) > only to limit such easy copying just as much as not to render making > new creative works unprofitable. Mostly agreed, with the caveat that "just as much" here apparently is "not at all": Red Hat, musicians like Amanda Palmer, filmmakers like Nina Paley, and others seem to be discovering ways to make creativity profitable that do not depend on erecting a tollbooth in front of the making of copies of their works. Adding in that copyright law is actively DIScouraging the creation of new works (which it is sworn to ENcourage) (example numero uno: the current kerfuffle involving a court banning publication of a sequel to Catcher in the Rye) it really looks like it's about time for it to go. >> So if someone wants to make their software available to me only under the >> condition that I don't reverse-engineer it, then I either accept the conditions >> and use the software, or I don't accept the conditions and don't use the >> software. To me, that's primarily a moral matter, not a legal one. > > Oh, if it's a moral matter, it's perfectly fine - I won't blame you > for your morals. However, when moral is imposed by force of law, it > means that you live in a despotic state. Doesn't that depend on the moral? When it's one pretty much everyone agrees with, like "murder is wrong", enacting associated laws (e.g. be found guilty of murder, go to jail for a long time) is not considered despotic. However, it's clear from just the statistics on file-sharing alone that it is NOT true that "pretty much everyone agrees with" the "morals" of copyright law, software "licenses", and similarly. (Interestingly, you'll see much less objection to and attempts to violate the GPL than you will, say, the Windows EULA and likewise infringement of copyrights in GPL'd software than in, say, Windows. When infringement of GPL'd code does occur it tends to be by big business, too, not by individuals.)
From: Nick Keighley on 13 Oct 2009 08:26 On 13 Oct, 00:24, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Espen Vestre wrote: > > Don Geddis <d...(a)geddis.org> writes: > >> Or perhaps [personal attack deleted] > > No, if anyone here is crazy it's Don Geddis. > > > You're thinking of "Series Expansion" and "Seamus Mc Rae" now? > > Who are they? posters with a similar style to yours
From: Dave Searles on 13 Oct 2009 10:33 Nick Keighley wrote: > On 13 Oct, 00:24, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> Espen Vestre wrote: >>> Don Geddis <d...(a)geddis.org> writes: >>>> Or perhaps [personal attack deleted] >> No, if anyone here is crazy it's Don Geddis. >> >>> You're thinking of "Series Expansion" and "Seamus Mc Rae" now? >> Who are they? > > posters with a similar style to yours Irrelevant, then.
From: Don Geddis on 13 Oct 2009 23:54 Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009: > Don Geddis wrote: >> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009: >>> Ron Garret wrote: >>>> [says I'm a liar] >>> No, you are. >>> This is getting very tiresome. If you have run out of rational arguments >>> and all you have left are ad hominems in your ammo, maybe it's time you >>> quit? >> [personal attacks deleted] > Wrong. "I want you to stop quoting me out of context," he said. "Printing my comments intact would make things much easier." Mansfield went on to claim "I...[like]...boys." -- From the Harvard Lampoon's mock of the Harvard Crimson _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org
From: Dave Searles on 14 Oct 2009 03:14
Don Geddis wrote: > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009: >> Don Geddis wrote: >>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009: >>>> Ron Garret wrote: >>>>> [says I'm a liar] >>>> No, you are. >>>> This is getting very tiresome. If you have run out of rational arguments >>>> and all you have left are ad hominems in your ammo, maybe it's time you >>>> quit? >>> [personal attacks deleted] >> Wrong. > > [personal attack deleted] Wrong. |