 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Sunday, August 18, 2002
I think lessig is right about copyright. What would the web be without open source? The web is open sourced. That is one of it's main advantages. It is why everyone can easily make a webpage. People are making money from the web. The source of a webpage is still subject to copyright. And it doesn't come with copy-protection schemes. Dave, I thought the net developer community exists because of open source. That's why it's bad when Microsoft tries to make Microsoft proprietary codes/tags for IE, it breaks the web. Haven't you raised the specter in your own writing of Microsoft "closing" the web? Lessig's argument is simple. Open source is useful. It's more useful to the public than closed source. It is the people, through goverment that grants copyright, and copyright should serve the interests of the people, not the copyright holder. Granting copyright to an author is a means to end, not an end in itself. "Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" "Writings" here is the code. Copyright is granted to the what is authored or discovered...unless compilation is authoriship the copyright is granted to the source. Promoting the progress of Science and the Useful arts is better achieved through open source than closed source. I know this through personal experience if only with networking related communication...think token ring vs ethernet, tcp/ip vs appletalk/ipx/etc..., http/html vs opendoc/cyberdog or msn/blackbird Doc, you said you want to preserve a free net. Well, it's free as in open, not free as in beer. -calvin There are responses to this message:
|
