Hey all, I'd actually reverse the order of these points turning On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 19:04 +0100, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
- the right to own fully-functional computers;
- the right to make flexible use of published information; and
- the right to express logic in code freely.
into 1) the right to express logic in code freely, 2) the right to make flexible use of published information, and 3) the right to own fully-functional computers.
The first right (IMHO) is the right to freedom of speech and, specifically, to express mathematics or more specifically to express statements in the lambda calculus in a non-Church'ian notation.
The second right probably shouldn't be a right (IMHO) as it's covered by a producers copy allowance (copyright seems a strange term when talking about rights). Producers copy allowance is reasonable if it's not the length it currently is and there were other legal protections (the type Stallman talks about, having different length producer copy allowances for different types of products) and if copyright couldn't be claimed on source code unless it's actually published (It's a trade secret until then).
The third right is a function of the marketplace and as such I don't think it should be a right at all. Any reasonable computer will be an implementation of a Turing machine. I presume these guys are trying to get at the TCPA style devices. It should (IMHO) never be a right to own a non-TCPA computer; customers should demand it.
I don't want to modify Malcom's nice wiki page with my opinion, I'm just putting it out for debate. I do agree with Seth's "hard-line" approach to SW patents; they suck, they're a barrier to free speech and they're a protection for mathematics (something we've always considered we discovered, not invented).