Magnanimous Manumission · Monday July 16, 2007 by Crosbie Fitch
jure said 6401 days ago :
Surely it would be immoral to keep private a cure for an epidemic disease?
Crosbie Fitch said 6401 days ago :
Life trumps privacy, so yes jure, you’re right.
However, this wouldn’t obviate the need for restitution, e.g. compensation.
Nevertheless, the fact that life-saving cures may exist in private laboratories does not warrant their pre-emptive seizure in case an epidemic may one day break out that they may cure.
The state must be prudent in determining when the offer of compensation is an insufficient incentive to publish, and disclosure must be made compulsory.
Lives may not only be benefitted by seizure of altruistically developed cures, but also by encouraging a free market in the research, development and sale of privately developed cures.
Cultural freedom is not about prohibiting commercial secrets, but about ending corporations’ unethical control over use of the secrets they’ve published.
Scott Carpenter said 6401 days ago :
Hi, Crosbie. I agree that it is a very natural thing to want to publish and share, and that people should have the right to private modifications. I think we may differ in opinion about how that applies to software used over a network. It seems to me that much of the software of the future will run that way, and should we make a distinction about where the code runs when saying that people should be free to reuse it? At the same time, I wonder if there is a balance here that allows free software to thrive more when companies can use it internally (Google, etc.) and keep private modifications (that are publically offered as a service!) as a competitive advantage?
Crosbie Fitch said 6401 days ago :
Scott, I recognise your concern over SAAS.
There is a subtle divergence between the pragmatism of ‘The ends of copyleft justify its means’, and the idealism of those who hold that ‘Copyleft nullifies the unethical means of copyright’.
Belonging to the latter camp, I think it would be best if we left commercial considerations to the free market and focussed on the more fundamental principles. After all, copyright was also created out of commercial consideration and only a constitutional con that it was culturally conducive.
Of course, some people steadfastly believe that the GPL is a quid pro quo (rather than copyright nullification), i.e. “If you exploit my software, you must contribute your improvements back to the community”.
I’m all for freedom, but I don’t like the idea that a consequence of my use of a published work is having my liberty suspended, or having my privacy violated.
I’ve reviewed the pertinent principles here: Where Freedom Ends and Privacy Begins.
Bill Hooker commends Scott Carpenter for publishing some photos of pebbles using a PD licence, and terms it a generous impulse
I think it’s worth scrutinising why it could be considered generous.
The act of publishing photos of pebbles is not intrinsically generous. It is simply self-expression.
It can only be considered generous from the point of view of copyright, i.e. ‘Deciding not to selfishly take advantage of the state’s unethical suspension of the public’s liberty to exchange and build upon published art’.
After copyright’s forthcoming abolition, publishing pictures of pebbles will be considered as natural as walking along a beach, picking up a pebble that catches your eye and showing it to those friends who accompany you. For such a natural act of sharing and exchanging the art that we discover constitutes no sacrifice or magnanimity.
However, work that we do, should our talents become valuable, need not be disclosed until we obtain payment. This exchange of money for labour is also natural (and neither selfish nor generous), irrespective of whether the end product also comprises photos of pebbles.
Unfortunately, there is a disturbing idea that is gaining ground in the free culture movement that people should not be allowed to hoard their unpublished art. In other words, because digital art can be freely shared, it could be considered selfish to keep it to oneself. So, expect to see copyleft licenses that prohibit private modifications (that are not published free of charge on demand to any who ask).
Let our publication of the art we discover or create be a voluntary act rather than a compulsory one. It isn’t generous to publish, it isn’t selfish to keep private, it is the artist’s right and choice to decide.
That means that one artist cannot force another to publish what they wish to keep private, nor can they control what another artist does with their published work in private.