-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Seeing as the list do want this discussion, below is my reply to David.
I had worked on the basis that divisive discussions such as these are best kept off public fora. But if people want to, we can.
Cheers, Niall - ------- Forwarded message follows ------- On 26 Sep 2003 at 3:19, David Golden wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, went out drinking last night unexpectedly. Nursing a bit of a hangover this morning too :(
Well, my first post to this list and it may seem a bit harsh :-( :
Not at all. Very reasonably toned.
You posted (on tuesday) some comments about the GPL being non-free...
That seems an odd (read: absurd) stance for an FSF list, and one direction that really would seem a tad inappropriate for the list to take while it is under the "FSF" banner. You may have been joking or sarcastic, of course, and I'm not suggesting it's a _discussion_ that's inappropriate for the list (though it's been done to death over the years and gets kinda boring), but as a _direction_ I'd like to state my not-so-humble opinion right now that it's pretty damn silly.
The FSF's criteria is more loose than the GPL believers would like because not everyone believes in copyleft. In fact, some like me think the GPL a necessary evil and a doubtful one still at that.
Of course, academically, the GPL isn't totally "free" like "I release this into the public domain" would be. Perhaps that's all you meant, but I don't really know.
I meant that the GPL does many of the same bad things to software as proprietary closed source does eg; duplication and thus waste of production. The GPL seeks to permanently restrict the use of software just like proprietary. I don't for a second call GPL software free software.
Of course, what would be even freer would be if copyright didn't exist at all.
Well copyright is nearly dead already. Another ten years and they'll be screaming out for a legislative replacement.
The GPL is designed to try to preserve some of the freedom that existed before software ("applied discrete mathematics") became copyrightable late last century. It's doing a damn good job in the anti-free environment that the current crop of infofascists (WIPO etc.) have produced. While the GPL would be unenforceable in the absence of software copyright and patent law, it would also be unnecessary, as people have pointed out ad nauseum.
As I said, a necessary evil. But not one which should be encouraged and most certainly, the GPL is not moral.
Copyleft only acts "un-free" to those who would, secretly or otherwise, wish to "own" information under copyright law themselves and thus restrict the freedom of others.
For me it's not a matter of owning information - I believe that is the free property of mankind and there's little the law can do to change it. What it is about is that if I write a piece of software which saves every company in the world ten euro per year, I see it only as fair that every company in the world should pay me that ten euro for the first year and thereafter the savings are mankind's.
I don't care how it's done legally, but I cannot be swayed from the notion that if a person or group contributes significantly to the improvement of their fellow man, they should be adequately rewarded. This is one of the best features of capitalism - that taking risk is rewarded ie; entrepreneurship.
I don't give a shit if some people can't sit on their arses and "sell" infinitely-replicable information patterns of software as an artificially-scarce "product" once the GPL takes over. I could still make a packet on computers, doing ACTUAL WORK of installation, configuration, operational support, "bespoke" new development and so on, even in the complete absence of software copyrights (and patents).
You have, like many others, made the logical mistake of believing there is a difference between manipulating intangibles and tangibles. There is not.
Thus this foolish idea of working on software as being a kind of services industry (like where you pay an engineer to fix your motor) rather than a manufacturing industry (like where you make a motor and sell it) is extremely dangerous in the long-term. That whole idea must be stamped out and I unfortunately notice a strong correlation of this idea with those who believe in the GPL.
The key to this logical mistake is to look at computer software as pure information. It is not. It is also a self-contained solution to a problem ie; an engineering solution ie; information without needing a human in its relational definition. Therefore it is much more like a motor in nature than information ie; it is something distinctly more than information (for example a computer program baking a cake is substantially more than the recipe for a cake).
This is why I have proposed that anywhere information is a self- contained solution to a problem not requiring a human (software, DNA etc) it falls under a unique and customised legal framework. Not copyright and definitely not patents.
While the current furore has temporarily united in opposition to patents many proprietary and free software people, I would not be in favour of pandering to proprietary interests on an FSF list - I'm not one of those wishy-washy "peaceful coexistence with proprietary software" open-source types. That's like "peaceful coexistence" with an aggressive mucormycosis.
I don't know if you'll view me as a proprietary interest. I suppose in some ways I am in that until the post-capitalism age dawns (next thirty years), I think it foolish to go around with woolly-headed notions such as not being able to become rich from making a piece of software.
When the entire economic structure bifurcates as it surely will, I'll be happy to change my views when everyone else is not longer doing this. Until then, it's a dog eat dog world and you need every competitive advantage to survive.
All I will say to you is that my views and your views are 95% identical. We probably differ on 5% of key things. Now compare me and Bill Gates and we'd disagree on about two thirds or higher.
By now you may be saying "If I Ever Meet You I Will Kick Your Ass", but I really don't care - I'm a just bit paranoid about fifth columnists, a (Microsoft-favorite) strategy that has been used to try to destroy computing things before (with varying degrees of success - e.g. even the Amiga still has a kind of unholy walking-death, though I prefer to stay away from the shambling horror and try to remember it as it once was...)
Amigas were nice. Know a fellow called Carl Sassenrath? He had a big influence on the Amiga Workbench.
BTW I've no problem with people who disagree with me, and there are no shortage of those. I do get a problem when people who are wrong go around imposing the consequences of their wrong views on me.
[quavery schlock horror voice] I know people have gone to Microsoft Research, and come back... different... [/quavery schlock horror voice] ... like invasion of the bodysnatchers different, or "I read Dianetics and know that Scientology can help me" different...
You should try reading entrepreneur books (eg; "starting your own company") or economics books. They are so amoral it scares me that the majority of the holders of power actually believe that crap ...
Microsoft are the same. I've known people who worked there who believed in free software just as much as I do. But in the end Microsoft's practices are immoral and people intuitively realise that. It's why Apple who have become much less immoral with OS X have become so popular.
Cheers, Niall
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
On Sat 27 Sep 2003 18:16, Niall Douglas wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Seeing as the list do want this discussion, below is my reply to David.
I had worked on the basis that divisive discussions such as these are best kept off public fora. But if people want to, we can.
I disagree totally, openness and honest acknowledgement of division is becoming more and more important, and is vital for a resilient society that won't "shatter when struck"- you can't analyse and really resolve division by hiding it. Digression: I recommend the book by David Brin "The Transparent Society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?" for an introductory and accessible (i.e. not written by Popper) exploration of why it's probably for the best to keep such things out in the open, and why it's becoming much more important that we do so as technology advances (demand reciprocal transparency, not privacy, one of my bones of contention with the FSF is their privacy stance.). http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html
In fact, some like me think the GPL a necessary evil and a doubtful one still at that.
I do hope one day the GPL will become unnecessary. I don't think it's particularly evil. Certainly not compared to your average MS EULA :-)
I meant that the GPL does many of the same bad things to software as proprietary closed source does eg; duplication and thus waste of production.
Duplication? The duplicator had a choice, they could always have just abided by the GPL, and avoided the effort, couldn't they?
The GPL seeks to permanently restrict the use of software just like proprietary. I don't for a second call GPL software free software.
Again: it only restricts those who would exert exclusive rights over non-scarce information themselves, as far as I'm concerned.
Well copyright is nearly dead already. Another ten years and they'll be screaming out for a legislative replacement.
Perhaps, but the pessimist in me predicts the replacement will be the legislation of mandatory DRM brain-implants :-))
For me it's not a matter of owning information - I believe that is the free property of mankind and there's little the law can do to change it.
Property is a legal result, mainly. Property rights are created by law. In the absence of law, your property rights become "whatever you can defend". Sure, information should be the free property of all mankind, alright, if people insist on talking about it as property...
What it is about is that if I write a piece of software which saves every company in the world ten euro per year, I see it only as fair that every company in the world should pay me that ten euro for the first year and thereafter the savings are mankind's. I don't care how it's done legally, but I cannot be swayed from the notion that if a person or group contributes significantly to the improvement of their fellow man, they should be adequately rewarded. This is one of the best features of capitalism - that taking risk is rewarded ie; entrepreneurship.
There should be no guarantee of adequate reward for "taking risk". If there was, it wouldn't be "taking risk" - Think about it!
Current nominally "capitalist" nations are anything but - you have governments left right and centre swallowing the anti-capitalist arguments that people, in particular pseudopeople that are large corporations, should be entitled to recoup investments they have made, even if bad (particularly if bad, in some cases...).
In fact, most of the participants in the ever more popular "anti-capitalist" protest marches around here (Dublin) are really anti-corporatist if you listen to what what they're complaining about. Unfortunately, capitalism (free-market capitalism) is being tarred with the same brush as corporatism since the fascists in power describe themselves as capitalists, and even call their completely-anti-free-market pushes for further first-world protectionism "establishing global free markets". [Sigh...]
Whatever happened to "sunk costs are sunk costs" :-( ???
You have, like many others, made the logical mistake of believing there is a difference between manipulating intangibles and tangibles. There is not.
You have, like many others, made the logical mistake of believing there is no difference between manipulating intangibles and tangibles. There is.
That's a little off, though, really, I actually agree pretty much with your version of the statement - but only because, in the limit, I don't really believe in intangibles. "intangible" is woolly thinking. Information only exists when impressed on a physical substrate.
Thus, I do not think that ownership of "information" itself is valid, as it conflicts directly with physical property rights over substrates.
I acknowledge things get a little awkward at quantum level, where there's glimmerings that there is a quite close correspondence between information and physical items, but it isn't a correspondence that suggests that any existing frameworks will be valid as they currently stand once we gain the ability to control things at that level.
Thus this foolish idea of working on software as being a kind of services industry (like where you pay an engineer to fix your motor) rather than a manufacturing industry (like where you make a motor and sell it) is extremely dangerous in the long-term.
Dangerous for who? Microsoft, yes (but not so dangerous that they couldn't successfully adapt, in my opinion).
Handy you chose motors- I have a masters in mechanical engineering as well as being a professional software developer and all round annoying know-it-all ("consultant"). I happen to know, from personal experience, that software production is almost NOTHING like motor production. Software+Hardware is slightly like a motor. Software on it's own definitely isn't. With software, a sufficiently detailed specification IS the software.
You can't write down "this is an A.C. induction motor" and have it be called the motor, but you can write down "(setf pants (make-instance 'someclass))" and have it be called the software.
Further thought: Modern motors and more complex machines involving motors often have control systems. Software certainly is used , in that context, as the settings/instructions for the control system computer. When you're a junior engineer doing some grunt work "fixing" a machine from the disinterested manager's perspective, you're actually often tweaking or rewriting said settings and instructions (i.e. writing software, perhaps in some godawful PLC assembler). So software _production_ can actually be very like motor _fixing_. :-))
That whole idea must be stamped out and I unfortunately notice a strong correlation of this idea with those who believe in the GPL.
Hmm. "The whole idea must be stamped out"? A tad extreme, and not something I like to hear in any context.
The key to this logical mistake is to look at computer software as pure information. It is not.
Uh. Yeah, it is, considered by itself.
(for example a computer program baking a cake is substantially more than the recipe for a cake).
A computer program might, when run on a computer interfaced to a servomechanism/robot, instruct a cake to be made. But a computer program will never bake a cake in and of itself, no more than my mind (best guess is that's information impressed upon the physical substrate of my brain) can bake a cake without my hands.
I would never regard teaching a human how to bake a cake as immoral. I'm not going to regard teaching a robot how to either.
Until then, it's a dog eat dog world and you need every competitive advantage to survive.
Yep, a competitive advantage like open source. Sometimes cooperation is a competitive advantage. Kick all those old proprietary weenies butts. :-))
Amigas were nice. Know a fellow called Carl Sassenrath? He had a big influence on the Amiga Workbench.
Well, I've never spoken to him personally, but he did some pretty cool stuff, like the Amiga kernel itself, exec.library. Of course, he then spent years on Rebol, which I regarded as a kinda mediocre despite the hype - if you'd already used Lisp, Rebol's grand claims rang rather hollow.
You should try reading entrepreneur books (eg; "starting your own company") or economics books. They are so amoral it scares me that the majority of the holders of power actually believe that crap ...
Oh I have, I had years of economics, business management, etc, in my degree, and I've been working since 2000. I might be setting up a business soon, was kinda waiting to see how that there software patent vote went (and yes, I know the whole thing's not over at all yet...).
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:36:00AM +0100, David Golden wrote:
(demand reciprocal transparency, not privacy, one of my bones of contention with the FSF is their privacy stance.).
Please explain this bone. I might be able to clear it up, and others on the list might have similar bones.
I do hope one day the GPL will become unnecessary.
Why? or how?
Users must have the four freedoms, something must require that they be given these freedoms.
Governments could pass laws requiring software distributors to give all users these freedoms, but would you trust all the worlds governments to do this and not revert the law later?
Ciaran O'Riordan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 28 Sep 2003 at 21:32, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Users must have the four freedoms, something must require that they be given these freedoms.
Governments could pass laws requiring software distributors to give all users these freedoms, but would you trust all the worlds governments to do this and not revert the law later?
What is to stop any government reverting laws and doing what it feels like?
Why nothing other than the vigilance of the people.
Cheers, Niall
On Sun 28 Sep 2003 21:32, you wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:36:00AM +0100, David Golden wrote:
(demand reciprocal transparency, not privacy, one of my bones of contention with the FSF is their privacy stance.).
Please explain this bone. I might be able to clear it up, and others on the list might have similar bones.
Well, the main problem is that the FSF as a policy had stated at once stage they supported a right to privacy, I can't actually find a link to back that up right now, so for all I know they've toned down a lot, or I just imagined the whole thing...
I note their front page now says merely "a right to use encryption software for private communication", but that still sounds to me like supporting the idea that some communications should be private, and they just link straight to the EFF, which as far as I can tell DOES support an actual legal right to privacy.
I'm not actually opposed to people using encrypted communications, note, just that if I intercept and record the communication and later decrypt it, I don't think I should be guilty of anything.
I think I already mentioned I find the FSF too reasonable and moderate - I'm a TFIer - "Total Freedom of Information".
As discussed in a previous thread, asymmetry of information availability is a key to power. As far as I'm concerned, a right to privacy for your average guy like me is pretty useless, because the guys actually seeking power over me will be operating outside or above such a law and "violate" my privacy anyway. The only valid answer to "Who will watch the watchers" is "the watched must." (note the recursion - if the watched are watching the watchers, the watchers must also be able to watch the watched who are watching :-) )
An _expectation_ of privacy in certain situations is perhaps okay, but I don't believe anyone should have a _right_ to keep secrets, whether military, government, corporation, or citizen.
I do hope one day the GPL will become unnecessary.
Why? or how?
Why? Because I hope one day people will do things because they're the right thing to do, rather than needing laws. No, that's not going to happen any time soon.
How? By me making my own universe, that's how ;-)
you trust all the worlds governments to do this and not revert the law later?
No, but I don't trust governments or any entity that presumes dominion over me, full stop. I'm for the replacement of hierarchies by networks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 28 Sep 2003 at 3:36, David Golden wrote:
Note: I appreciate that some of the stuff I've said below is hard. Most people when I start talking like below switch off or deliberately take simplified (and therefore totally incorrect) interpretations of what I really said. But if you study it long enough, it's very worthwhile.
I had worked on the basis that divisive discussions such as these are best kept off public fora. But if people want to, we can.
I disagree totally, openness and honest acknowledgement of division is becoming more and more important, and is vital for a resilient society that won't "shatter when struck"- you can't analyse and really resolve division by hiding it.
Oh but we're not hiding it. These discussions merely go on behind closed doors where the enemy(TM) have difficulty getting to it.
If you don't think they employ people to spy on us, see the Sunday Times today about BAE paying for agents to infiltrate anti-arms sales groups.
Digression: I recommend the book by David Brin "The Transparent Society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?" for an introductory and accessible (i.e. not written by Popper) exploration of why it's probably for the best to keep such things out in the open, and why it's becoming much more important that we do so as technology advances (demand reciprocal transparency, not privacy, one of my bones of contention with the FSF is their privacy stance.). http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html
I hope you don't mind me saying I think this approach somewhat naïve and simplistic. He who controls information creates the potential for power. Therefore putting this stuff in public is counter-productive in the current climate.
In fact, some like me think the GPL a necessary evil and a doubtful one still at that.
I do hope one day the GPL will become unnecessary. I don't think it's particularly evil. Certainly not compared to your average MS EULA :-)
The single advantage of the MS model over the free software one is that it is long-term self-sustainable. If the free software movement did not have proprietary software to clone, they would quickly lose cohesion and it would become a right mess.
If you disagree, go read "The Mythical Man Month" and note my points about free software requiring consensus before it can achieve something (and I mean through volunteers, not injection of external capital to employ people to do something they wouldn't personally normally do). And everyone can agree on copying an existing example.
I meant that the GPL does many of the same bad things to software as proprietary closed source does eg; duplication and thus waste of production.
Duplication? The duplicator had a choice, they could always have just abided by the GPL, and avoided the effort, couldn't they?
Most engineers will tend to duplicate rather than reuse. It's bad practice and has been for thirty years, yet we're all still doing it. The GPL and closed source both encourage duplication over reuse, and therefore work against best practice. I am therefore opposed to both.
The GPL seeks to permanently restrict the use of software just like proprietary. I don't for a second call GPL software free software.
Again: it only restricts those who would exert exclusive rights over non-scarce information themselves, as far as I'm concerned.
Except it asserts exclusive rights over the very same non-scarce information as well. It's a manifestation of the same problem ie; that software use must be permanently controlled for its own good.
I say no! I say that we need a better system, one which does everything to encourage best practice wherever it can. And we don't just need it in software, we need the same across all society across the world.
I liken the relationship between the GPL and closed source to capitalism and communism - these both stem from the same set of underlying assumptions ie; communism is merely a form of capitalism underneath. What those who hailed the victory of capitalism over communism fail to understand is that its death knell is also that of capitalism.
Well copyright is nearly dead already. Another ten years and they'll be screaming out for a legislative replacement.
Perhaps, but the pessimist in me predicts the replacement will be the legislation of mandatory DRM brain-implants :-))
Not if someone invents a totally secure and untrackable file trading system. Other than install a chip in every computer (which Linux could disable anyway), that event is only years away.
This is one of the best features of capitalism - that taking risk is rewarded ie; entrepreneurship.
There should be no guarantee of adequate reward for "taking risk". If there was, it wouldn't be "taking risk" - Think about it!
I should have said "that there is an incentive to take risk ie; entrepreneurship". I usually do, just forgot this time.
Current nominally "capitalist" nations are anything but - you have governments left right and centre swallowing the anti-capitalist arguments that people, in particular pseudopeople that are large corporations, should be entitled to recoup investments they have made, even if bad (particularly if bad, in some cases...).
That's different. That comes from the more recent ideology that what is good for business is automatically good for society. The Americans in particular use this one openly - while we stopped doing so in the 1960's, that mantra still underlies much of government and social policy in Europe.
In fact, most of the participants in the ever more popular "anti-capitalist" protest marches around here (Dublin) are really anti-corporatist if you listen to what what they're complaining about. Unfortunately, capitalism (free-market capitalism) is being tarred with the same brush as corporatism since the fascists in power describe themselves as capitalists, and even call their completely-anti-free-market pushes for further first-world protectionism "establishing global free markets". [Sigh...]
I'd go much further than you have. I would say that the global opposition to globalisation actually stems from the usual social unrest which precedes a civilisation bifurcation point. People are intuitively realising that the current world system is unsustainable and is increasingly showing large cracks - and that total collapse is coming closer.
If you explain it this way, suddenly the recent penchant of western governments to legislate everything becomes clear - they are trying to wallpaper over the ever widening cracks. Things like DRM, software patents, EU legislation on the bendiness of bananas - all of this comes from a psychological need to feel like we're doing /something/ about this problem. Indeed the invasion of Iraq is clearly to secure control of energy sources but when looked at from higher up, it's more actually to feel like you're taking proactive action against the inevitable collapse of the current bretton woods system.
Since the late 1970's, the future for the world has become clear. Research started then has been increasingly growing though it is virtually unrecognised by the mainstream. A growing number of wealthy individuals are pouring money into post-capitalist research and the results are very interesting. Yet even if you searched the internet right now, I'd bet you'd have trouble finding any of this stuff.
What I especially like about it is that the future world order as proposed by these theories is completely scientific, long-term sustainable and ties in human spirituality very neatly as well. In fact, one could call it the grand unified theory of everything :)
You have, like many others, made the logical mistake of believing there is a difference between manipulating intangibles and tangibles. There is not.
You have, like many others, made the logical mistake of believing there is no difference between manipulating intangibles and tangibles. There is.
This means the same thing?
That's a little off, though, really, I actually agree pretty much with your version of the statement - but only because, in the limit, I don't really believe in intangibles. "intangible" is woolly thinking. Information only exists when impressed on a physical substrate.
Not at all. The dictionary definition of intangible is anything you can't hold in your hand. And you're wrong - information exists without any physical representation, just as does love, bad, an idea or plato's horse.
You're about to say that all those are human relative. And you'd be right - love to a human is a human's understanding of love. But love exists well beyond the ken of a human. Love exists without requiring a subjective interpretation just as much as plato's horse exists without a human ever seeing one.
Is this scientific? Absolutely. Once you accept the inevitable consequences of a quantum multiverse, all these things become clear.
I acknowledge things get a little awkward at quantum level, where there's glimmerings that there is a quite close correspondence between information and physical items, but it isn't a correspondence that suggests that any existing frameworks will be valid as they currently stand once we gain the ability to control things at that level.
All conventional matter is merely emergent strands of order from an ever increasing quantity of complexity. Ditto for our brains and thus any ideas it forms. Everything in the universe is connected - and a rock is just as much alive as we are or the sun is. What is moral is only that which is long term self-sustainable and the quantity of morality is a measure of the contribution of complexity and thus evolution it gives to whatever is around it.
You may think this too metaphysical and thus irrelevent to the discussion. But I don't think you can understand why I think the way I do without understanding what I have said above. If you want further clarification, Gregory Bateson is a good start.
Thus this foolish idea of working on software as being a kind of services industry (like where you pay an engineer to fix your motor) rather than a manufacturing industry (like where you make a motor and sell it) is extremely dangerous in the long-term.
Dangerous for who? Microsoft, yes (but not so dangerous that they couldn't successfully adapt, in my opinion).
Dangerous for long-term sustainability. Thus treating software as a service is immoral and bad for society.
Handy you chose motors- I have a masters in mechanical engineering as well as being a professional software developer and all round annoying know-it-all ("consultant"). I happen to know, from personal experience, that software production is almost NOTHING like motor production.
The production of it is irrelevent. They are of the same because both are solutions to a problem ie; an engineering solution. A book is not, except as a doorstop.
Software+Hardware is slightly like a motor. Software on it's own definitely isn't. With software, a sufficiently detailed specification IS the software.
Totally incorrect, but it's a common mistake. Is software any less of a complete solution to a problem without the computer hardware it runs upon?
Think of it this way: is an electric motor any less of a complete solution to a problem without electric current?
You can't write down "this is an A.C. induction motor" and have it be called the motor, but you can write down "(setf pants (make-instance 'someclass))" and have it be called the software.
A description of software is like the plans for constructing an electric motor - incomplete.
Further thought: Modern motors and more complex machines involving motors often have control systems. Software certainly is used , in that context, as the settings/instructions for the control system computer. When you're a junior engineer doing some grunt work "fixing" a machine from the disinterested manager's perspective, you're actually often tweaking or rewriting said settings and instructions (i.e. writing software, perhaps in some godawful PLC assembler). So software _production_ can actually be very like motor _fixing_. :-))
No, you're confusing software production with software debugging. Debugging software is not production just as much as fixing a machine is not building it.
That whole idea must be stamped out and I unfortunately notice a strong correlation of this idea with those who believe in the GPL.
Hmm. "The whole idea must be stamped out"? A tad extreme, and not something I like to hear in any context.
What about stamping out fascism or torture?
I know it's not popular in the modern age, but there is absolute right and absolute wrong. The GPL is bad but I agree it's necessary. However treating software production as a service is an extension of the logical errors behind thinking computer software is nothing more than information. That is a recipe for future disaster.
Pure information can not solve a problem without a human added to the equation. This is why computer software is more than normal vanilla information - it has value and worth beyond normal information because it can solve problems.
Let's look at the entire universe. What does it do? Easy: it solves problems. Every single facet of everything solves problems. Look at biological life - what does all of it do? Again, it solves problems. - From the single celled bacteria to a dog to a human, their primary function is to solve problems.
Therefore a computer program, because it is a self-standing solution to a problem not requiring a human in its relational definition, is a manifestation of new emergent order.
Haven't you ever wondered why it is possible for us to double transistor counts every twelve to eighteen months? Sure, you can explain it in terms of improvements in technology. I go further than that - I say we tapped into a manifestation of the fundamental operating principle of the universe. If humankind wants to evolve, and I mean /really/ evolve, therein lies the solution.
(for example a computer program baking a cake is substantially more than the recipe for a cake).
A computer program might, when run on a computer interfaced to a servomechanism/robot, instruct a cake to be made. But a computer program will never bake a cake in and of itself, no more than my mind (best guess is that's information impressed upon the physical substrate of my brain) can bake a cake without my hands.
What all computer software solves are human defined problems. But you must not confuse the nature of the act of solution with the end result itself.
Cheers, Niall
On Saturday 27 September 2003 18:16, Niall Douglas wrote:
For me it's not a matter of owning information - I believe that is the free property of mankind and there's little the law can do to change it. What it is about is that if I write a piece of software which saves every company in the world ten euro per year, I see it only as fair that every company in the world should pay me that ten euro for the first year and thereafter the savings are mankind's.
I don't care how it's done legally, but I cannot be swayed from the notion that if a person or group contributes significantly to the improvement of their fellow man, they should be adequately rewarded. This is one of the best features of capitalism - that taking risk is rewarded ie; entrepreneurship.
This bit puzzles me. This is exactly the purpose of patents, so why were you against software patents? Was it simply due to the excessive duration? In which case what about shit-hot clever ideas who's time has not yet come?
Do you think that software patents are not fundamentally flawed, just implemented badly?
F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 28 Sep 2003 at 12:11, Fergal Daly wrote:
I don't care how it's done legally, but I cannot be swayed from the notion that if a person or group contributes significantly to the improvement of their fellow man, they should be adequately rewarded. This is one of the best features of capitalism - that taking risk is rewarded ie; entrepreneurship.
This bit puzzles me. This is exactly the purpose of patents, so why were you against software patents? Was it simply due to the excessive duration? In which case what about shit-hot clever ideas who's time has not yet come?
Do you think that software patents are not fundamentally flawed, just implemented badly?
I am opposed to anything which restricts the freedom of ideas to make software. I strongly support anything which adequately rewards a person's contribution to the improvement of their fellow man.
Since software patents seeks to restrict the freedom of ideas behind software, they are fundamentally flawed. But I'm fine with something restricting temporarily the implementation of software so sufficient reward can be earned to give to the programmer for their work.
This isn't copyright BTW. Copyright protects the expression of ideas and so theoretically is the right approach. My problem is that it was written with books in mind and so is an ill fit for software plus it has become unenforceable in the current age. Therefore it will increasingly not reward the person contributing to the improvement of their fellow man, and thus needs replacing with something which will.
Cheers, Niall