[linux-elitists] GPL Violations

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Wed Jul 26 19:37:41 PDT 2006

Quoting Ben Finney (ben@benfinney.id.au):

> On 26-Jul-2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Ben Finney (ben@benfinney.id.au):
> > > They're copyrights, not property rights.
> > 
> > A quibble too far:  I did not say (nor mean) _natural_ property.
> A distinction easily missed, and difficult to impart. 

Well, if that was too subtle, then I guess you can stick with this
reduced-complexity variant:  "Sorry, you're simply wrong, Ben.
Copyrights _are_, as stated, a variety of property."

> So why not just talk about copyright...?

1.  If I ever need someone to compose my mailing list posts, I'll bear 
    you in mind -- but not today, thanks.

2.  As should have been evident, I wanted to stress the ludicrousness 
    of the unnamed BSD gentleman preaching how (or if) other people 
    should enforce their property rights.  The fact that the particular 
    cited example involves an abstract property is irrelevant to the point.

Honestly, didn't you know that before asking?

> ...instead of raising the "natural versus kinda-not-really property"
> spectre at all?

I believe _you_ did that, sir.  

Now, are you quite done -- or do you perhaps have a point that you've
not yet articulated?

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list