Probably a larger issue as well.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Oct 24, 2007 5:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:"So every school should bring only Free Software to class, and set an example with its software of the practice of disseminating human knowledge while building a strong, capable, independent and free society. And encouraging the spirit of good will, of helping other people." Besides creating and using Free Software, the larger issue here is that of "disseminating human knowledge". Communication. The issue of what must be, what should be, and what should not be communicated. In the U.S. at least, free and open communication can be effectively limited by patent and other laws, libelous speech/writing, outright censorship, and a seeming host of other reasons. A blatant case of censorship outside of the U.S. is occurring even as dcparris's post has been reviewed here. China's censorship of Google, as seen at Bruce Einhorn's BusinessWeek piece 'China's Internet Censors Strike Again' at http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/eyeonasia/archive... This Internet censorship story does not seem to have been picked up as have other larger stories, yet this clearly shows that bottling up communication certainly reduces "building a strong, capable, independent and free society. And encouraging the spirit of good will, of helping other people". |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 5:18 PM EDT |
>free and open communication can be effectively limited by patent How does patent law limit free and open communication? It certainly can limit innovation productivity, but communication? At its roots, the patent system is a way of ensuring that information gets disseminated by remove or, at least, reducing, the incentive for individuals and organizations to keep secrets. All patents are public documents. You may not be able to use the technology without a license until the patent expires, but you get to know about the innovations covered. When the patent expires, you are free to use what might otherwise have been kept secret. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2007 5:34 PM EDT |
> ...libelous speech/writing, outright censorship, ... In the US, if what you are writing is true, that's an absolute defense against libel. The same is not true in Great Britain. Outright censorship, while it does occur, is comparatively rare and usually fairly easily worked around. Copyright and trademark are severe limitations on free and open speech. Whether that is a good thing or not is a debatable matter. I could easily argue both sides of the issue, and probably be equally convincing (or not :) ) on both. |
| vainrveenr Oct 24, 2007 5:40 PM EDT |
> "At its roots, the patent system is a way of ensuring that information gets disseminated by remove or, at least, reducing, the incentive for individuals and organizations to keep secrets. Not anymore. Access to the detailed information which the patent system is supposed to allow dissemination of, effectively gets throttled REGARDLESS of intent. We all certainly DO NOT get to always know about innovations covered. Ergo, Free and Open Ccommunication becomes effectively stifled and Stallman's points are definitely well-taken. Read (or re-read more carefullly) dcaparris's Blu-GNU blog. |
| dcparris Oct 24, 2007 5:54 PM EDT |
Sorry, but it's not a blog. I might be running a (mostly) one-man show, but I distinctly separate the blogs from the news and editorials. I might be picking nits, but I consider the difference to be of some importance. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :-) |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 7:36 PM EDT |
>We all certainly DO NOT get to always know about innovations covered. You'll have to enlighten me on that because I don't know what you're talking about. In the bad old days, there was the concept of the "submarine" patent. It wasn't anything official, just a reference to the fact that patent applications are secret -- IOW, the patent isn't disclosed until it's granted. That is, technically speaking, still the case, but, as a practical matter, is not the problem it once was, because... the law changed, and the term of patents now runs from the date a patent is applied for instead of the date it is granted. That removes or greatly reduces any incentive to stretch out the application process because it will reduce the time available to exploit your patent. |
| ottawalonndon Oct 25, 2007 4:15 AM EDT |
GoodMorning or perhaps BonApresMidi dcparris
""
I might be running a (mostly) one-man show, but I distinctly separate the blogs from the news and editorials. I might be picking nits, but I consider the difference to be of some importance.
""
A capitol idea as apropos your communicating your desire for more absolute precisi0n! Never a man who Stalls the issue now, not you, what? But how now pray tell....your ventures into the news journalism weblog as well as your other blue-gnu.biz weblog endeavours? Well, we must simply wait and find out what else is in store for us in your regularly scheduled written programme communications, now won't we? :) ottawalonndon |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!