On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 10:16 +0200, Baris Cicek wrote: > On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 01:59 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote: > > >>>>> "AK" == Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > AK> Physical ownership is as much a fiction as information ownership. > > AK> There's no physical law that says that just because you gave a > > AK> shopkeeper some green pieces of paper, I can't take your new iPod > > AK> when you aren't looking [1]. It's just a convention that allows > > AK> society to work. > > > > One important difference is that if I steal your bicycle, you will > > notice. If I give a copy of your program to a friend, you will not > > notice. > What if you got 10.000 bicycle and you did not notice of a theft > accident since you counted it wrong or don't have a good stock > management? Does it void your bicycle ownership and excuse the thief? What if I have a revolutionary machine that can copy your bicycle and reproduce it perfectly? Would it be theft if I come and copy yours and than go away leaving yours intact? > Not that I'm trying to support IP, just trying to express that your > analogy sounds wrong. Analogies are always wrong, simply because we are not comparing apples to apples, a bicycle is a physical object, software is not. Persisting in trying to treat "Intellectual Property" like traditional forms of property on physical objects is just plain stupid. Unless it is done on purpose, to confuse people, in which case it is criminal imo, as it is a form of fraud. Simo. -- Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> Sr Software Engineer Base Operating Systems Red Hat Inc. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
