Amir,
With all due respect, the end does not justify the means. If the means of achieving your goals depends upon the existence of government, then you are doing it wrong. GPL is great until you enforce it upon someone who does not recognize the concept of Intellectual Property as legitimate. It is born of the same evil as IP to begin with.
I do like the idea of using legal structures in self-defense, but never in offense. So if you setup a cooperative that would continue to function in the absence of government enforcement of the contracts then you are ok. If you depend upon benefits the government provides at the expense of others then the coop is corrupted.
Dan
On Jan 1, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
> Are you guys robots? The GPL is awesome because it makes great
> opensource projects and hurts proprietary software. The only people who
> whine are usually using Mac OSX and doing some startup stuff. I could
> care less about huge platonic hypotheticals. It's like the hippies who
> say we need to get rid of money.
>
> http://hintjens.com/blog:68
>
> Mr. Pieter Hintjens is a genius and knows a shit ton about creating
> great opensource communities. He's an expert, and if you take time to
> read all his works, you'll realise the sense of what he's writing. Shit
> like Google closing Android simply wouldn't work with the GPL (and
> contributors own the copyright). That's how it should be.
>
> You can do amazing actions with the law. It's not the original designed
> intent, but we can hack this weapon of power and invert it. See what the
> CIC is doing by using the legal structure of a cooperative to create
> their own internal economy: http://cooperativa.cat/en/
>
> On 01/01/14 18:14, Daniel Larimer wrote:
>> There is a difference between real time self defense, and preemptive
>> violence in the name of self defense (justification for all wars or
>> imprisonment)
>>
>> Also contracts that attempt to compel a certain behavior may not be
>> valid as this is akin to selling yourself into slavery.
>>
>> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp
>>
>> THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY implies the right to make contracts about that
>> property: to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the
>> property of another person. Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to
>> the right to make contracts, hold the /contract itself/ to be an
>> absolute, and therefore maintain that /any/ voluntary contract whatever
>> must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a
>> failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from
>> the right of private property, and therefore that the
>> only /enforceable/ contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of
>> legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide
>> by the contract implies the/theft/ of property from the other party. In
>> short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill
>> it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we
>> hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to
>> property has already been /transferred/, and therefore where the failure
>> to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is
>> retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former
>> (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable
>> contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.1
>> <http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp#_ftn1>
>> ……...
>>
>> Let us examine, on the other hand, the implications of the now
>> prevalent “promise” or “expectations” theory of contracts. Suppose that
>> A promises to marry B; B proceeds to make wedding plans, incurring costs
>> of preparing for the wedding. At the last minute, A changes his or her
>> mind, thereby violating this alleged “contract.” What should be the role
>> of a legal enforcing agency in the libertarian society? Logically, the
>> strict believer in the “promise” theory of contracts would have to
>> reason as follows: A voluntarily promised B that he or she would marry
>> the other, this set up the expectation of marriage in the other’s
>> mind; /therefore/ this contract must be enforced. A must be/forced/ to
>> marry B.
>>
>> ………
>>
>> Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or
>> expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the
>> only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the
>> case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of
>> man, /alienable/ by man. All physical property owned by a person is
>> alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the
>> ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to
>> another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are
>> certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man,
>> are inalienable, i.e., they /cannot/ in fact be alienated, even
>> voluntarily. Specifically, a person cannot alienate his /will/, more
>> particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has
>> control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own
>> will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and
>> inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person
>> are inalienable, then so also are his /rights/ to control that person
>> and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration
>> of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they
>> cannot be surrendered, /even/ if the person wishes to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Bedeho Mender <bedeho.mender@???
>> <mailto:bedeho.mender@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> -Clearly it would depend entirely on the context, but it seems that
>>> in a whole range of plausible circumstances that a contract exists.
>>>
>>> example: I stand on the street corner selling my own software in
>>> exchange for
>>> money, and part of the states sales agreement is that you cannot
>>> violate GPL
>>> terms of my software.
>>>
>>> In this scenario there is clearly a contract, and use of force seems
>>> no less
>>> legitimate than in other contract violation cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 December 2013 19:35, Mike Gogulski <mike@???
>>> <mailto:mike@gogulski.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2013 11:49 AM, Bedeho Mender wrote:
>>>> To my knowledge, anarchism does not require abandoning use of
>>> violence
>>>> under all circumstances.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Surely not. Anarchism != pacifism, though some combine the two or
>>> choose
>>> to derive one from the other. I don't.
>>>
>>>> If one interprets the GPL violator as breaching contract with
>>> the creator
>>>> of the software, then use of violence to prohibit continued
>>> breach seems
>>>> like an act many anarchists would find acceptable.
>>>
>>> The "violator" has no contract with the creator under any reasonable
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>> http://www.nostate.com/2323/intellectual-property-does-not-exist/
>>>
>>> and see particularly:
>>>
>>> http://www.nostate.com/514/and-you-agree/
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net <http://unsystem.net/>
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] GPL vs. libre softwa…
