O frabjous day! (Was: [UFO Chicago] I give up)

Neil R. Ormos ormos@enteract.com
Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:01:24 -0600 (CST)

Jordan Bettis wrote:

> I've re-read the discussion regarding Intellectual
> Property on this list, and I've decided that I've been
> wrong all along.  Through his cunning interpretation of
> current IP law and appeal to the self-serving computer
> professional in all of use, Mr Ormis has made me realize
> the folly of the Free Software movement.

I must thank Mr. Bettis for giving me credit for winning an
argument in which I never participated.  "O frabjous day!
Callooh! Callay!"*

Unfortunately, I must admit that none of my postings on this
topic have mentioned, much less disparaged, the free
software movement, and I haven't made any appeals to the
"self-serving" (or otherwise) "computer professional".

> I now understand that it's not about what the users want,
> it's about what the developers want.  [ . . . ] I've
> therefore accepted Tim O'Reilly's "freedom zero" which is
> basically: freedom on the part of the developer to fuck
> the users as hard as he wants.  [ . . . ]

Nor did I post anything about that.

> Now, a very dangerous idea [ . . . ]  They claim that the
> IP laws were supposed to protect the "little guy", and
> that corporations therefore should not be able to horde
> patents like Imelda Marcos hoarded shoes. I find this
> bigoted opinion downright disturbing [ . . . ]
Nor did I post anything about that.

> In accordance with this newfound clarity, there will be a
> few changes made around here.  Effective immediately, I
> shall begin moving all of my personal computers away from
> the needlessly complex Debian GNU/Linux operating system
> in favor of Microsoft Windows XP.  [ . . . ]

Nor did I post anything about that.

> I've come to realize that, the sooner we reject the siren
> call of Free Software and Free Beer from communists like
> Richard Stallman and accept the fact that Microsoft (and
> others) are offering us nothing more than the American Way
> codified into software, the better off we'll all be.

Nor did I post anything about that.

So far, I have not been arguing whether legal protection for
intellectual property is, on balance, beneficial, nor
whether any particular intellectual property policy or law
is wise and provident.  My comments were directed to the
falsity of Mr. Moffitt's assertion that "notions of theft
cannot be attributed to ideas", etc., and (much earlier) to
the idea that expectations be preserved.

Obviously, you (Jordan), Nate, et al., can expand the scope
of the discussion to the general wisdom (or lack thereof) of
intellectual property protection, or for that matter to the
fairness of our capitalism-derived system of economics and
government.  However, I have so far not been part of those
discussions.  To the extent you have styled your comments
above as adversely responsive, or somehow logically related,
to mine, you falsely imply that I have taken positions here
on issues about which I've said nothing.

* Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, "Jabberwocky"
 LocalWords:  adversarially