Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 21:34 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:22:45PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> Because that also means that I control what is done with my code. You
>>>> make it sound like all ideas should be in the public domain.
>>> That is the natural order of things. "Information wants to be free" is pretty
>>> sound economics. Copyright and friends exist[ed] to motivate people to
>>> behave in a way that benefitted society.
>> It's completely off-topic, but still...
>> I am not completely sure about that (at least for art). In France, there
>> is a kind of property right which tie a piece of work to the author in a
>> very specific way. It cannot be abandonned or transfered (although
>> strangely it is possible to fake the author). It is called le 'droit
>> moral'. It covers the right to divulgate to public or not, right to be
>> recognized as the author, right to enforce respect on the piece of art
>> and the right to remove the piece of art from the commercial circuit.
>> The jurisprudence may limit in fact that right.
> And yet, amazingly, it is all just a convention between people,
> information itself is abstract and you can't physically own it no matter
> how hard you try.
> Law may declare the world is flat, that doesn't change the physical
> nature of the world, it may decree the end of your life if you dissent
> though ...
Physical ownership is as much a fiction as information ownership.
There's no physical law that says that just because you gave a
shopkeeper some green pieces of paper, I can't take your new iPod when
you aren't looking . It's just a convention that allows society to work.
 Or even if you are looking.
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.