Re: [OS:N:] OS does not reject copyright WAS Open Source as a formof Anarcho-Communism?

[jmcdermo <jmcdermo redhat com>]

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 13:08, Jens Hardings wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Brent Fox wrote:
> 
> |> If all OS/Free software were to reject copyright, it would result
> |> in a BSD style movement.  There would be no GPL.
> |
> |
> | Indeed.  This is a very important point.  Copyright law is the
> | foundation upon which the GPL is built.
> |
> | And where does copyright law come from?  Or any other laws for that
> | matter?  From governments.  Therefore, I think the premise that the
> | Open Source is in any way anarchistic is flawed.
> 
> You are supposing that all Open Source software is released under the
> GPL or copylefted. And that is not the case.

Open Source software by definition is licensed.See:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

You are confused with one of two other items of software 1) Free
software, or 2) Software released into the public domain. To learn more
about these items and the differences between Open Source and Free
Software (which is the difference between a software development model,
and a new social paradigm) visit:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

> | To me, Open Source represents the application of the Scientific
> | Method to software.  The programmers are computer scientists that
> | share the results of their work with the rest of the world.  This
> | allows other programmers to build on the work that has already been
> | done.  In the early days of computing, this type of collaborative
> | effort was common. It wasn't until many years later that people
> | started keeping the source to themselves, which created the software
> | industry as we know it today. The entire GNU project was based on the
> |  desire to return to that sense of cooperation.
> | http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
> 
> And the fact is that in both, scientific method and open source software
> there is no central unit that somehow guides where the movement should
> go. Everybody acts on their own and the global movement is a result of
> all the independent interactions. It would be difficult to predict or
> even force the direction the movement would take.
> 

You are also confused here. Open source has several governing bodies,
including the LSB and a hierarchical development structure for
mainstream and beta software. The nice part is that if you dont like it
you are free to make your own, but if it breaks POSIX compliance or in
some other way deviates from standards the public requires for day to
day use, expect to also have to create the rest of your own distribution
as it will be difficult finding anyone to ship the code.

It sounds like you are more interested in the Free software model
mentioned above and the social impact it has.

--James

> - --
> Jens.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQE+eLIGu9OzKF2Kg7QRAjF3AJ9FF7frKqTiRcLQyA753GyamnfiRwCgtTnv
> 17XxGrlUb/JWl4MOk4nPQXw=
> =laEP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Subscription and Archive: https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
> -
> For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
> <https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>
>