Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[amicus_curious]

"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 
85ab99zkw2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85ab99zkw2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
> > 85k58d226h.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85k58d226h.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> > > "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
> > > > 85ocxrkkfj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85ocxrkkfj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> > > > > Try reading the GPL sometime.
> > > > Well, is it valid?
> > >
> > > That's entirely the choice of the recipient.  If he considers it
> > > invalid, he does not have a license, and has to behave accordingly.  If
> > > he considers it valid, he has a license granted under terms.  As long as
> > > he heeds the terms, there is nothing to fear for him.
> > Well, that is your opinion certainly, but it begs the question.  Is
> > there any requirment to honor a copyright asserted for something that
> > has no commercial value?  Is such a copyright valid at all?
>
> Certainly.  I can't break into a house and steal arbitrary things
> without commercial value.  Ownership is not dependent on monetary
> conversion.
You keep trying to change the venue from copyright to something else.  Even 
so, if you steal nothing of value, you are not prosecuted to the extent that 
you might be if you qualify for grand larceny.  That is set as a dollar 
amount.

> > It is much easier to see that source for something that has commercial
> > value, say Windows itself, is a protected work since the value is not
> > disputed.  But if it, like Linux, is not sold for a profit
>
> Huh?  How do you suppose RedHat is making a living?
Providing support for people unable to get Linus to work by itself 
apparently.  Basically it is engineering by the pound.  Or hour if you 
prefer.

> > and, worse, the only people making money from it are those who are
> > being paid to make it work for some client, it is not so clear.
>
> Nonsense.  Copyright is attached to a work, not to its price tag.
But is it a "work"?   With nothing unique or artistic, can source qualify? 
You cannot copyright the contents of a telephone book, for example.  Or a 
recipe for pork and beans.

> > > > In any case, if the author chooses to give it away gratis, then the
> > > > option of charging for it is no longer applicable.
> > >
> > > Huh?  If I compose and sing a lullaby to a child of mine, I no longer
> > > have the option for charging someone else if he desires a performance
> > > or a copy of the composition?
> > >
> > > How confused are you?
> >
> > Not as confused as yourself, certainly.  Your singing a lullaby is
> > almost certainly without value and would not be much of an artistic
> > "work" and might not qualify as subject to copyright.
>
> Nonsense.  If it is worth repeating for someone, it would certainly
> qualify.  If it isn't, the question does not arise, so there is no point
> in denying it its state.
But you have to show that it is worth it.  Do you have a bona fide customer?

> > But regardless, your singing it doesn't "fix it in a medium"
>
> I can write it down.
Or you could record it, but that is not what you said.

> > and so if you want to make a recording and sell it, you can still
> > charge, although, as I believe, no one will be found willing to pay
> > for a copy.
>
> It doesn't matter.  If nobody is willing to pay for a copy, that still
> does not entitle anybody to disregard copyright and make a copy without
> asking me.
Well, that is the question.  You are saying that you are the judge and jury, 
but you are not.

> > If all you do is sing again, that is up to the person hiring you.  You
> > would be well advised to get your payment in advance, I would think.
>
> I hope you are being paid in advance for your postings.
What do you think?