[Incubator] Incubation Committee meeting Monday 17th

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

On 01/26/2012 01:42 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> On 12-01-13 7:00 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>
>> 2Ct sideways: ...if at all possible I would try to avoid using the term
>> "Intellectual Property" in official statements because it is a malicious
>> Meme. Simply by using it we subscribe to the concept. But Open Source
>> does not function on "intellectual property" (if I ever have to use it,
>> I at least put it in quotes).
>>
> 
> Arnulf,
> 
> Either I disagree with your position or I do not understand your point.

Daniel,
admittedly I took a few shorts cuts in my explanation - it is a broad
topic indeed. I will start with two different perspectives for a starter.

In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813
(cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Limitations)

Thomas Jefferson once said in a letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13,
1813:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

The modern version is here:
http://arnulf.us/Copying_is_not_Theft

> Personally, I do not see FOSS in opposition to intellectual property. 

FOSS is not in opposition to the legal foundations that make up our
current cultural systems. Instead it leverages them (for example
copyright) to persist and protect itself, it's users and developers
(that's us). But we should be careful to not fall into the trap of
mixing things that have evolved separately and from very different
backgrounds.

My personal opinion is that although the term "intellectual property" is
in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it confuses
issues, lumping in copyright, patent right and trademarks into one big
and unclear ball. If we talk about any of these we should do so
separately calling them by their respective names and with reference to
the corresponding legal system. Copyright in Germany is different to
that in the US. We have to deal with this. But not by calling it all
"Intellectual Property".

"Intellectual Property" is also confusing because it treats ideas,
information and copy-able things as if they were limited physical
things. But as we all know that a brick cannot be copied and if I take
it away you do not have it any more. Virtual things like code, etc. are
different because they are copy-able (see again: Jefferson).

> I
> actually see open sourcing code as maintaining ownership of your own
> intellectual property (copyright), and then applying an open license to
> the code to make it free to use/modify/redistribute by the community.

Remove "intellectual property" and leave "copyright" in this paragraph
and we are good.

> As a FOSS developer I am proud of the code I have written and that has
> my name on it (my intellectual property)... I never gave that code away
> nor my IP rights to it and never will, I just put a very open license on
> it. Yes, in some cases we assign copyright to an entity such as OSGeo,
> but once again the Intellectual Property continues to exist and is used

... again, I would suggest to be very careful with the term
"Intellectual Property" because it is *not* well defined. We believe we
know, but we don't. Generally when talk comes to code ownership and
copyright issues many in these lists turn IANAL. But with "Intellectual
Property" many believe that they know what it means. I don't. The term
only came up in the late 20th century anyway. Guess who coined it? Those
interested in "protecting" their "property", in almost all cases these
were information monopolies.

> to apply an open license and keep some control on the code. So even if
> the case of copyright assignment we do not give up our IP, it is only
> placed in the hands of an entity that you trust to do the right thing
> with it on your behalf.
> 
> So the concept of intellectual property becomes a tool. not a problem in
> my view.

Again, in my view we should avoid using the term "intellectual property"
as best we can because it allures to false concepts. If this is of
broader interest we can continue the discussion - although much of it
has already been written down in papers, presentations and PHD thesis.
We must also be aware that there is a big and powerful "Intellectual
Property" lobby producing lots of FUD to lure us into accepting ideas
which we thoroughly do not.

> My 0.02$

My 2 Centavos (currently still in Uyuni, Bolivia, so this is much less
worth than your 2 $-Cents :-).

Best regards,
Arnulf

-- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us