3 ms·

> developers who were (allegedly) wronged 30+ years ago I listened to it and didn't hear the story of a developer whining about being wronged 30 years prior. T

> developers who were (allegedly) wronged 30+ years ago I listened to it and didn't hear the story of a developer whining about being wronged 30 years prior. The guy says clearly that he wanted to move on from Emacs. On the other hand, it's the story of an alleged source code theft and copyright violation. I hope the story is false but I don't think it's irrelevant because 30 something years have passed.

faissaloo 7y ago
As far as I'm concerned source code cannot be stolen.
TheNorthman 7y ago
Is there anyway he can get the stolen items back though? He should either go to the police and request them to help him get the stolen items back. Or maybe talk to his insurance company, they might help to compensate him for the loss. But a helpful idea; if they've stolen something and then put copies of that on a website that is freely accessible, I would suggest just copying it, so that both him and they have the same thing. That's a great thing with the digital world, everyone can have copies of things. I am surprised they stole something when they could just have copied it. I'm guessing it's some older individuals that don't know the possibilities of modern day technology to make copies.
- namirez 7y ago
  "Stealing" in the context of intangible entities is equivalent to appropriation without permission. It has nothing to do with conservation of the total number of intangible entities. If you don't like the choice of word, use appropriation or plagiarism instead. The basic argument doesn't change though.
- peterkelly 7y ago
  It might surprise you to know that many people believe in, and is codified in law in most countries, the concept of intellectual property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property In fact it is this very idea, and the notion that an author of a work should be able to dictate the terms under which it may be distributed, that underlies the concept of copyleft on which the GNU General Public License is based. If no-one respected intellectual property, then any company could take GPL code and incorporate it into their own closed-source products without distributing the resulting source code (as the license requires) or even acknowledge the original author. All other FOSS licenses similarly rely on intellectual property as a legal concept. I do agree that the words like "stolen" or "theft" do not really make sense in the context of intellectual property or digital artifacts, due to their differences from physical objects. I'm not sure what other terms to use, though I'd like to see a consensus reached. Nonetheless, the fact that data can be copied for effectively zero cost does not make it moral or legal to do so when the author has made it available under specific terms.
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
    Morality differs from legality, a distinction you yourself make late in your comment. It's also a distinction that renders the first two-thirds of your comment pointless. Yes, I am aware of, so called, intellectual property. I can only assume you knew that I was aware of it. So what is your point?
- ryanobjc 7y ago
  So, I'm downvoted you because I don't think you're contributing quality (You slag Gosling as 'some older individuals' who 'don't [understand] modern technology') Either that or your comment was made in bad faith. I really can't tell, but come on, the problem is that Gosling doesnt understand how digital tech can make copies of data?

faissaloo 7y ago

As far as I'm concerned source code cannot be stolen.

TheNorthman 7y ago

Is there anyway he can get the stolen items back though? He should either go to the police and request them to help him get the stolen items back. Or maybe talk to his insurance company, they might help to compensate him for the loss. But a helpful idea; if they've stolen something and then put copies of that on a website that is freely accessible, I would suggest just copying it, so that both him and they have the same thing. That's a great thing with the digital world, everyone can have copies of things. I am surprised they stole something when they could just have copied it. I'm guessing it's some older individuals that don't know the possibilities of modern day technology to make copies.

namirez 7y ago
"Stealing" in the context of intangible entities is equivalent to appropriation without permission. It has nothing to do with conservation of the total number of intangible entities. If you don't like the choice of word, use appropriation or plagiarism instead. The basic argument doesn't change though.
peterkelly 7y ago
It might surprise you to know that many people believe in, and is codified in law in most countries, the concept of intellectual property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property In fact it is this very idea, and the notion that an author of a work should be able to dictate the terms under which it may be distributed, that underlies the concept of copyleft on which the GNU General Public License is based. If no-one respected intellectual property, then any company could take GPL code and incorporate it into their own closed-source products without distributing the resulting source code (as the license requires) or even acknowledge the original author. All other FOSS licenses similarly rely on intellectual property as a legal concept. I do agree that the words like "stolen" or "theft" do not really make sense in the context of intellectual property or digital artifacts, due to their differences from physical objects. I'm not sure what other terms to use, though I'd like to see a consensus reached. Nonetheless, the fact that data can be copied for effectively zero cost does not make it moral or legal to do so when the author has made it available under specific terms.
- TheNorthman 7y ago
  Morality differs from legality, a distinction you yourself make late in your comment. It's also a distinction that renders the first two-thirds of your comment pointless. Yes, I am aware of, so called, intellectual property. I can only assume you knew that I was aware of it. So what is your point?
ryanobjc 7y ago
So, I'm downvoted you because I don't think you're contributing quality (You slag Gosling as 'some older individuals' who 'don't [understand] modern technology') Either that or your comment was made in bad faith. I really can't tell, but come on, the problem is that Gosling doesnt understand how digital tech can make copies of data?