Linus also seems like a much happier guy.
Judging an idea based on how happy those who believe it are seems like a dangerous heuristic.
False. You do NOT have the right to restrict what I do with "your" ideas, once you've shared them with me - be it software, sonnet, or poem. The government may limit my fundamental freedom by enforcing a limited-time monopoly, but only in order to encourage you to work on your ideas.
It is NOT your fundamental right to have such monopoly indefinitely.
I often wonder what RMS would do if he had the power to enact a law mandating that all software be free software - as a form of "positive liberty". Judging by his writings, I get the feeling he'd do it.
My copyright of a work doesn't restrict your ability to copy the idea. In fact, this is what many Open Source projects do: they copy the idea or a proprietary software, but not the software (ie. the work) itself.
Nobody is restricting you from creating a similar food or software (unless there is a patent, which is an entirely different issue). You have the right to create your version, and I have my right to sell only the product, not the process that made it.
This is where I see a problem.
Can somebody suppress my rights (to share, to sing, etc.), in the form of terms? Is a right is something that I can trade?
I don't understand these issues much, just doubts :-(
If the movie theater also restricted your right to write a negative review afterwards, say, it would be a bit dicey.
Some contracts that suppress rights might be defensible BUT the point is that such contract are not apriori valid.
Indeed, your the military example shows the need for limits; there's a reason that only the state can operate with the contract you describe. If a private organization could do such a thing, there would serious trouble on many fronts (private armies = bad things).
You're making some fundamental logical errors here.
Your first premise is that you have these rights. But where's your rationale for that?
The simple truth is that you only have these rights if the objects under consideration are yours. But you have no right to share my books. You have no right to share my house. You have no right to share my property. And you have no right to sing my song.
Unless I give you my permission to do so, of course.
So, your first premise is wrong.
Your second premise is that it's suppression if you were not given all possible permissions. But you agreed to the terms with a free will. No one forced you to do that. No one pointed a gun to your head telling you what to do. In fact, you are free to do the same work I have done to author the work, in the first place.
So, your second premise is also wrong.
I don't know what your conclusion is but it's probably wrong, too, because your premises are.
I was asking whether you can set terms that limit my rights? You are not government, right?
I don't think you understood my 2nd question at all.
No, as i said, I was not concluding anything.
There are basically two contexts the word "right" is used: an moral and a legal context.
If the right you're talking about is an moral one, you surely can trade it. This happens all the time since people differ in moral judgements. For example, some may say you have a right to health. Assuming the premise is true, you can still "trade" it for the (subjective) benefit of smoking.
If the right you are talking about is a legal one, it depends on the law. I don't think, for example, that you could sell your right to vote. However, there are other rights you can sell. For example, copyright gives you certain rights that you may sell or trade.
These fundamental freedoms can impede progress, and so the US constitution allows congress to enforce limited-time monopolies for authors on their intellectual creations. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
What you're talking about is 'copyright', the right to give your creation to someone and restrict their ability to use said creation once they have it in their possession. That's more a little more complicated than ' to do what you please with your own creation'.
See this is the insane part. How can anyone believe that? No one forces you to use their proprietary software. If you don't like proprietary software, write your own equivalent software and use that. (Of course these days it's sometimes hard to get your own software onto devices, but rarely is it impossible).
You can have closed proprietary programs and have completely open standard file formats.
Yes, file formats /can/ be seen as a different issue, but its often the reason I end up using proprietary programs.
One can have a closed program with a open file format, but not an open program with a proprietary file format, why? Doesn't it suggest an interesting link between proprietary programs and proprietary file formats? Do you still think they are really independent issues?
Exactly. So comparing it to slavery is ridiculous.
You're right though, they are interlinked. Still, no one is forcing anyone to use proprietary software.
However, he is making a valid point and you are neglecting to see it.
Not everyone is a super-man that can ignore the influences of their environment. We have to deal with other people and their sometimes strange ideas and you're assuming that we don't, or at least you're assuming that there are no negative consequences for ignoring the rest of the environment and doing what you want.
You're right. I don't think there are. But then I'm completely against the minimum wage for similar reasons. You're not forced to get a particular job.
Sure, but can you have open free programs and closed, locked-down, proprietary formats? It's a separate issue, perhaps, but it's a very closely related one.
The fact that a lot of public records are stored only to be used in proprietary software is a disturbing trend.
You're arguing two different things here.
I don't think the field of writing software has many true geniuses really. We're all just cranking out code.
Coming up with new algorithms is impressive, but churning out code is less so IMHO.
Are we still talking about the guy who wrote some software and made it open source?
Do you not think Linus would have just made his own compiler+toolchain?
Here's a better example: almost all webdesign, graphic design, and other jobs of that type want you to have experience in Adobe products. So what ends up happening is that because people want the jobs, they learn Photoshop. Now it may be a great program, but it's still proprietary and you get locked into Adobe's upgrade cycle because the latest version is The Industry Standard...always, it's fucked up how that works really.
So if someone has had experience with the GIMP or some other free software, and can do the work just as well as a Photoshop user, their resume will be dumped because the Adobe name has a lot of weight. That someone will then figure out that to get a job, they'll also have to use proprietary software.
You don't live in a vacuum where you can do what you want.
Getting a job has obviously benefits for you, otherwise you would no try to get it. But there are also always costs.
These costs include wasting time on learning how to design in the first place and quite a lot of other activities. And it may also include to get a Photoshop license.
After all, you are not required to use it for your private stuff, too!
Also, these "market forces and monopolies of various sorts" hold true for "free" software: If I'd like to get a job as a sys admin, I may have to deal with Apache and Samba althought I really, really hate it!
Where's my right of not being required to deal with Apache and Samba?
If you are judging the truth of a premise sure, but for an attitude to take?
According to pragmatism, the truth of an idea is at least partially determined by the effects of that idea.