3 ms·

This take would require that all information and access to information must be free. Sure, take the red pill, but don't overdose.

breck 4y ago
Not at all. It just says that Person B is free to share all the information in his possession with Person N. He absolutely has no right to break into Person A's home or force Person A to give him information. It just says that if Person A publishes information, Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit. Person A has no slaveholder rights over Person B.
- aspyct 4y ago
  > Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit. So you disagree with most open source licenses like the GNU GPL, as well as the Creative Commons licenses? GNU GPL doesn't let you reuse things "as you see fit". It requires you to also disclose the source code for your products. The Creative Common licenses may or may not enforce attribution, non-commercial usage and share-alike. Not saying you're wrong (although...), but your views on the topic seem to disagree with a lot of well established, respected things.
  - breck 4y ago
    > So you disagree with most open source licenses like the GNU GPL, as well as the Creative Commons licenses? Yes! I think they are a clever maneuver to weaponize (c)opywrong laws against themselves. But they are short-sighted. Ultimately the solution is to Amend the Constitution. The idea of "Licenses" on Ideas is repulsive when you think about what that means from root, and the goal should be to get rid of such a concept all together, like we got rid of the concept of Licenses on People. FSF, EFF, and CC should come together and realize this and take a real stand. Go on the offense. https://breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendment.html https://breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendment.h...
    - aspyct 4y ago
      Well, if you can afford to work for free, good for you. That's not my life unfortunately.
- 13years 4y ago
  But if I'm a business partner, and we are working on a new innovative product. I can simply leave with all your ideas and build my own.

breck 4y ago

Not at all. It just says that Person B is free to share all the information in his possession with Person N. He absolutely has no right to break into Person A's home or force Person A to give him information. It just says that if Person A publishes information, Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit. Person A has no slaveholder rights over Person B.

aspyct 4y ago
> Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit. So you disagree with most open source licenses like the GNU GPL, as well as the Creative Commons licenses? GNU GPL doesn't let you reuse things "as you see fit". It requires you to also disclose the source code for your products. The Creative Common licenses may or may not enforce attribution, non-commercial usage and share-alike. Not saying you're wrong (although...), but your views on the topic seem to disagree with a lot of well established, respected things.
- breck 4y ago
  > So you disagree with most open source licenses like the GNU GPL, as well as the Creative Commons licenses? Yes! I think they are a clever maneuver to weaponize (c)opywrong laws against themselves. But they are short-sighted. Ultimately the solution is to Amend the Constitution. The idea of "Licenses" on Ideas is repulsive when you think about what that means from root, and the goal should be to get rid of such a concept all together, like we got rid of the concept of Licenses on People. FSF, EFF, and CC should come together and realize this and take a real stand. Go on the offense. https://breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendment.html https://breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendment.h...
  - aspyct 4y ago
    Well, if you can afford to work for free, good for you. That's not my life unfortunately.
13years 4y ago
But if I'm a business partner, and we are working on a new innovative product. I can simply leave with all your ideas and build my own.