Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[Mark Hinds <zoro@nwnexus.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:
> 
> At 04:39 PM 1/1/99 -0500, Mark Hinds wrote:
> 
> >Brett Glass wrote:
> >
> >> Cygnus is a group that has, since its inception, accepted the notion
> >> that programmers should be day laborers rather than creators of
> >> intellectual capital. They're willing to run on the consulting
> >> "treadmill." Most programmers, however, dream of being more
> >> entrepreneurial.
> >>
> >> --Brett
> >
> >Most dream of this? Possibly, but dream only. The people I know
> >in software, myself included, expect only to work and be paid for it.
> 
> I guess I have higher aspirations, then. So do most of the programmers
> with whom I associate.
In your case grander delusions would be more appropriate.
In what what sense is it higher to be an 'entreprenuer'?

> 
> >For most (all that I know), intellectual property is something that
> >their employer owns and always will. I accept this 'day laborer'
> >notion.
> 
> That's a sad view. It relegates programmers to the role of menial
> laborers rather than that of creators. I should HOPE that a creative,
> inventive person would want to be much more. I honestly feel sorry
> for you if your world view is really so hopeless.
Give me break. You can hope anything you want for yourself,
but not for me. I have a good wife and 2 goofy little boys. If
it wasn't so much work and I was younger I'd have more. The sad
view around here is yours. I will pit my creative inventive
spirit against your bogus nonesense anytime. I honestly feel
sorry for me too (and most of us) because persons with your
warped perspective are occassionally successfull and leave
big messes around for us day laborers to clean up. Fortunately,
you are all mouth and no substance, but there are on occassion
crack pots like you that cause real trouble in the world.

> 
> >Intellectual property will end up in the hands of those with money.
> 
> Not so. Intellectual property is one of the few areas in which
> the little guy is on a par with the big guy. In fact, the framers
> of the Constitution set things up that way. That's why, if I write
> a book, even the biggest and most powerful publishers will
> respect my copyright on that work.
Tell that to the guy who invented the television. What do
think the real inentors of the mpeg layer-3 audio inventions
are getting for their work? Most people who right books
don't get jack, jack. Could you possibley troble yourself
to provide an example of you own personal success with
intellectual propery?

> 
> >I personally do no like or accept this. This does not make me a
> >communist.
> >I simply have drawn a line beyond which capitalism must not go.
> 
> Unless an individual can create something of value, capitalism
> cannot go ANYWHERE.
Huh? Right. I get non-sequitor humor. Here's more. Unless you
put the keys in the ignition the car can't go anywhere, unless
one hot wires it, assuming there's gas :-)

> >Your idea of us foolishly relinquishing our right to knowledge
> 
> No one is suggesting that anyone "relinquish one's right to
> knowledge." I am, in fact, suggesting that you prevent others
> from depriving you of the opportunity to benefit from your
> knowledge.
I am paid more than adequately for my knowledge, perhaps
you are not. I am not entitled to live of the fruits of
my great knowledge after having ceased to employ it.

> 
> >to support the entrepreneurial fantasies a few is not acceptable.
> 
> Sorry, but there are a lot more than a "few" of us who would like
> to be (or are) entrepreneurs. That's the wonderful thing about
> America: small entrepreneurs actually have a chance. That you have
> set your sights too low should not encumber the rest of us.
OK, fine you think you and your plumber friend are relly awesome and
can't as many people. I don't.

> 
> >Our only defense
> >against the eventual hoarding of knowedge by those who can afford it
> >is something like the GPL.

> This is one of the most patently false assertions of those who
> support the GPL. No one can "hoard" something that someone else has
> released to the world. One can only keep one's own unique
> contributions to oneself. And that is everyone's right.

Please explain how BL prevents 'improvements' (ie trivial propietary
changes)
made by a large corporation from rendering the original broken and
therefore
useless without those proprietary changes? By this means MS or some
other
can effectively steal your knowledge (decomditization). Yes someone can
hoard knowledge and they will if given the chance. 

Mark Hinds