[linux-elitists] GPL Violations

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Wed Jul 26 20:56:17 PDT 2006


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

> I (like many denizens of this list) am unusual among the software-geek
> field in that I *do* appreciate the distinction between copyrights and
> physical property rights. I'm pointing out that it's a distinction
> easily missed, requiring effort to clarify on the part of both teacher
> and learner.

So, basically you were distracting from my point to Shlomi to change the
subject and harp on a tediously familiar conceptual distinction that we
already all know and that has no actual relevance.  OK.


> Hence my question,
> 
> > > So why not just talk about copyright...?
> 
> asking *why* you'd go to that effort, and require your interlocutor to
> do so, when not mentioning "property" at all makes the same point
> without the confusion to which I drew attention.

I'm boggling at you complaining about putting people up to _excessive effort_, 
in my using one solitary word that reflected my intent rather than
another solitary word that did not -- in the same breath as you drumming
up a verbose freshman-philosophical discussion for no visible purpose.

> Asking questions about your posts, and the reasoning behind them, is
> not an attempt to compose them.

Your putting a particular punctuation mark on the end of a tedious and
time-wasting tract unfortunately did not suffice to make it a question.

> Indeed; your point is strong regardless whether you mention the word
> "property", which raises the confusion that most people think of it
> solely as "natural property".

1.  I think you need to meet a better and more representative subset of
"most people".  (I guess nobody in your circle have never heard of
_owning stock_?)

2.  Feel free to consider this an opportunity for public education, 
given the sort of people you evidently consider to comprise "most
people".  In the meantime, I'll politely decline your suggestion that
the usage "raises confusion".

> So, again, if your point is equally valid, and clearer, when stated in
> terms of "copyright", why raise the word "property" at all?

My point was phrased exactly, concisely, as intended.  You would plainly
have preferred that I make a different one.  Unfortunately for you, your
view was not solicited, nor is it now.

You are wasting my time.  Please consider followups to be figuratively
set to "misc.test".




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list