ethical ubuntu

[Peter Garrett]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:09:03 +0800
"Michael T. Richter" <ttmrichter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-16-06 at 16:50 +1000, Peter Garrett wrote:
> 
> > That's why we have copyright laws - we can all
> > share the ideas, but we must be fair when we use them, giving credit to
> > their originators. Plagiarism is not acceptable, but fair use and correct
> > citation are. 
> 
> 
> That is, in fact, dominant western thought, yes.  But a) it wasn't
> always this way and b) it isn't true in all cultures.  There is a strong
> tradition of quotation without citation in Chinese literature and
> scholarship, for example, as well as a long tradition of making major
> works of art anonymously whose originators are only discovered --
> possibly -- through later painstaking scholarship.  (More notes for the
> "Linux for Human Beings" file.)

I was not making a value judgement about cultural differences  :-)
Nor would I frown on cultures that do not espouse ideas like "fair use"
and "copyright", which as you say are largely western concepts, which have
only become dominant in the last few centuries even in the west.
> 
> 
> > Payment for commercial software may be in money, and that is
> > fine - it doesn't have to be "free" to be Free. 
> 
> 
> How, exactly, does someone GPL (or similar) code to make it "Free" and
> then make money from selling it again?

I am not a businessman - in fact I may be the world's worst businessman :)
i am therefore unqualified to answer this question. I suspect, as you
imply, that the commercialisation of Free software is largely done using
the service business model.

[snip]
>  But I really am tired
> of hearing "Free software can be sold profitably as a serious
> enterprise" when it's clear from a few seconds' consideration that this
> is not, and pretty much cannot be, true.

My point was not to argue that this was possible "per se", but to point
out that it was not unethical to attempt it.

just a final thought: when we look at a Rembrandt, are we looking only at
paint, brushstrokes and canvas? A computer program is a set of symbols
translated into a performance. A painting is a set of symbols
translated into a performance. When a museum pays millions for a
Rembrandt, are they paying for the performance, or for the right to
use that performance in the hope of further profit? And is that profit
only monetary, or is it cultural as well?

Does the museum own Rembrandt's so-called "Intellectual Property" ?

These questions are not rhetorical, by the way.

Peter