Re: <nettime> Linux strikes back III

[Ian Dickson <ian@iand.demon.co.uk>]

>
>but to rerun an old story or a continuing one for me - this is what
>troubles me about the reliance of fsfer's in whatever there guise on
>rigid forms of law ... if the fsf thingy is possibly "anti - property"
>or "proprietary" why not make the blatant choice of styling your legal
>language or "protection mechanism" in a non contractual form. Even the
>allegedly most radical fsfer's still can't remove themselves from the
>shackles of rigid rule based notions of law.
>
>As I keep saying the "structure and organisation of os means you don't
>need to rely on them to represent you ... we can all sue them all (if we
>so desire) ... users and contributers alike ...
>
I am confused.

Do you think that the FSF should simply let companies do what they like 
with Open Source code? Including make money out of it?

This would be the practical effect of moving to an "each person sue on 
their own account" or "code supplied on non enforceable terms" basis. 
(People as individuals cannot afford to sue, and it wouldn't stop the 
FSF suing anyway for those individuals who opted into any such action).

Of course if you want to write code and release it without any strings 
attached, you can.

If you think that Linux should be released on a such a basis, personally 
I think you'd see a lot of programmers stop contributing.

Cheers
-- 
ian dickson                                  www.commkit.com
phone +44 (0) 1452 862637                    fax +44 (0) 1452 862670
PO Box 240, Gloucester, GL3 4YE, England

           "for building communities that work"

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net