One of the things I like about this declaration compared to other similar ones (Declaration of Independence, UDHR, Stallman) is that it makes no mention of intr

One of the things I like about this declaration compared to other similar ones (Declaration of Independence, UDHR, Stallman) is that it makes no mention of intrinsic rights. It clearly states its objectives as goals to work towards, rather attempting to frame an imaginary natural law by which these conditions already automagically apply to the human animal. That said, it seems to me that there is a potential conflict between #3 (Openness) and #4 (Innovation). It is the same as the conflict between capitalism and democratic socialism: if you don't allow people a certain amount of economic tyranny in exchange for their work, the work won't happen, and civilization atrophies. This is intuitive with physical goods: people won't make shoes if someone can just take them, so we back up the concept of ownership with state violence, and that allows people to make a living cobbling. The same phenomenon happens in computing, be it through copyright, vendor lock-in, or walled gardens, and this is always going to create an incentive to block #3 (or, the lack of such incentive will inhibit #4). While I believe copyright/patent reform is deeply necessary, including the consideration that they might stymie more innovation than they create, this zero-sum conflict should be at the heart of it, and should be kept in mind when pursuing lofty goals of digital justice.