Subject: Re: GPL and trademarks and brandnames...
From: Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:19:36 -0500

> it implies that authors are morally obliged to disseminate their
> works in the manner most convenient for readers.

I am trying to claim that these obligations go with carrying the libre
flag; not that authors are morally obligated to carry that flag.

> The notion that people should develop all intellectual properties
> for the common good without concern for compensation would, amongst
> other things, leave us without dictionaries, car repair manuals,
> telephone books, and any of a huge number of other "works" that are
> highly useful, but uninteresting to create.  This is why quality
> "office" applications have been so hard to develop under the libre
> model: the people who tend to do libre coding work aren't really
> interested in writing word processors.

Yes, I completely agree.  And I wouldn't want to live in a world
without those things, either.

> I don't think people should "hoard" their IP
>
> but I do think that refusing to offer compensation for the costs of
> creation and of distribution is a sure-fire way to seriously
> diminish the rate at which useful IP is created.

I think these two ideas are opposites of one another.  You can't begin
to satisfy one without infringing on the other, and you can't
completely satisfy one without completing discarding the other.

	- Classical FSF libre is completely anti-hoard
	- Classical proprietary IP is completely pro-reward

I'd like to invent a set of terms between these two poles.  My utopian
terms would be positioned on the libre side of what current "free
software businesses" are doing.  Making these terms attractive to
authors may require outlawing classical proprietary IP.


League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA