Re: Design principles and ethics

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Wed, 3 May 2006 10:20:47 -0600,
"Christopher Nelson" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Are you saying that you believe that any work a person creates is 
> > > automatically public property?
> > 
> > No.  I'm saying that any work a person creates _and releases_ 
> > should be (but
> > isn't) public property, except that the cost of reproduction 
> > should be paid by the receiver (that is, if you build a 
> > chair, and I like it, I should not be allowed to just take 
> > it.  But I should be allowed to copy it, but I must pay for 
> > the materials etc, not you).
> > 
> > Of course I am well aware that this isn't how things 
> > currently work.  However, I think they should work like that, 
> > and I'd prefer not to build mechanisms which enforce other schemes.

I do not fully agree with Bas.  I think that for some things, a
_limited_ copyright, for example for a few years, can make sense.
 
> And how to people who make things like that get paid then?

The question is, I assume, how can people who make things like that
make a decent living.  But what about the people who do not make
things like that?  The question of social equity is an important one,
but quite different from the one we are discussing here.  I do not
think it is fair to only worry about the people who make things like
that in a pursue to an answer.

> Obviously, they don't.

Not at all obvious to me.  They did get paid before copyright existed.

> Which means that they will only do things like that in their spare
> time, while having to make a living doing something else.

Some may, others may not.  The same as it is today.

> There are models which work well with software, but not things like
> music.  What, a musician is going to charge for support services in
> case a person is musically incompetent, but still wise enough to
> realize that they need help?

Yes, of course.  It is sometimes called teaching, sometimes it is
called a concert (or a gig).  Sometimes it is a composition that is
needed for a special purpose, for example for a mass.

> Bas, communication is communication.  The man in the middle attack works
> just as well in an OS as it does over a network.  My point in this case,
> is that the child does not know who is between it and the user, cannot
> make any assumptions about it, and because it's parents can modify it's
> data and present it with a "false" world view, it can never communicate
> securely with any other process.

It can, because in this case the parent _defines_ what "securely"
means for the child.  This is not just a sophistic argument about
words.  It is essential to be clear about what "security" means to be
able to argue about it.  It is true that in my model, the existance of
the child is totally defined by the parent.  As a consequence, you
have to choose the right parent to create the child from.  This
requires some discipline, but it is not at all hard to get right for
the use cases I think we need to support.

I will send, within the next days, my second note, which will explain
the system structure that I have in mind, and some design patterns
that it supports.  This will hopefully provide a more meaningful way
to talk about the model.

Thanks,
Marcus