Subject: RE: [hackers-il] Open-Source and Objectivism

From: Chen Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:37:42 +0200

> Great point. But maybe you can say that your software is worth what
> you are really paid to write it. A lot of free software is 
> commercial nowdays. Also, I remember what the musician in Galt's 
> Gulch said: that his reward is sometimes other people's realization
> of his genius.

He specifically linked that realization to the payment they make before the
concert :-)

About Objectivism and IP:
Objectivism is a strange philosophy, because its the only copyrighted one.
Ayn Rand specifically said that if you disagree with her, feel free to have
other views, but don't call them objectivism.

Since Ayn Rand *explicitly* supported IP in several articles. *Explicitly*
claiming that it should work just like other kinds of property, and even
more so. (That was one of the major themes in "Capitalism: The Unknown
Ideal")

I think that one can't be both Objectivist and anti-IP.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:23:23 +0200 (IST)

> other views, but don't call them objectivism.

My familiarity with Objectivism comes from an extension of Objectivism
called Neo-Tech. One of the central concepts in Neo-Tech is that reality
is dynamic and actually changes as time goes by. Philosophy can't stand
still and not change with it.

We cannot claim that the Digital Revolution can have no effect on
Intellectual Property. In a way, Open-Source/Open-Content was an outcome
of the new de-facto reality. There was no way to prevent it, there is no
way to stop it, and there is no use claiming it is immoral much less
illegal. (hint, hint: Microsoft)

I will not go as long as Stallman to claim that properietary software is
immoral. As I may have said, both strategies are valid as long as all
sides play in a fair and competitive way.

So, unless Objectivism will be declared open for extensions by someone, it
will only be remembered as the predecessor of Neo-Tech, or whatever else
is based on it and acknowledges the fact that philosophy is and should be
dynamic.

> I think that one can't be both Objectivist and anti-IP.

I am not anti-IP in any way. However, Neo-Tech has an example that said
that buying gold on margin and waiting for an economic collapse was a very
bad way to live (believe it or not, but there were some Libertarians who
did it). In a similar way, trying to threaten people who violated or
allegdly violated your IP, and/or trying to pass draconic laws that try to
somehow prevent it, is a bad way to live. Only mystics have an inherent
dis-trust of all people enough to do such a thing.

Your IP is your property, but if you wish to distribute it in a digital
format, it can be copied and probably will be copied. You can try to
prevent it, but the rules of logic themselves deduce that you cannot
fully eliminate it.

If I'll have to choose one of the sentences "Intellectual Property is Bad"
vs. "People are Bad", I'll choose "IP is Bad" instantly. I'm not against
IP, but I'm much less against throwing accusations against people who
allegdly violate them.

Note that I have produced some intellectual property which is not free
content. (one particular piece is derived work, so I make no claim for
it). I'm not aware of anybody who violated this IP (even though I can't
think of any way it can be violated that I won't agree to). However, even
if people did, I'll first ask them to stop doing it, before I start waving
the DMCA, etc. I trust people with my intellectual property, and I'm
pretty sure that Ayn Rand never went far to claim that most people are
bad.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"