[OT] What is Open Source? (fwd)

[Laura Creighton]

> mertz at gnosis.cx (David Mertz, Ph.D.) writes:
> > |I think Clark was using contract in a metaphorical sense, describing a
> > |deal made with authors on one side, and society as a whole on the
> > |other.  In what's called the "copyright bargain", society agrees to
> > |grant limited temporary monopolies, in exchange for increased
> > |"progress in science and the useful arts".
> > 
> > Well...  I suppose Clark's use is a metaphor.  But it is an extremely
> > *bad* metaphor, one that does far more to conceal what's going on than
> > reveal.
> 
> Is it a worse metaphor than "the copyright bargain"?  That phrase has
> been around for decades or centuries and is generally considered apt.
>  
> > The problem with Clark's metaphor is that it very strongly insinuates
> > something exactly opposite to the true legal/ethical structure.  By
> > pretending that you "contract" for "intellectual property", you create
> > the illusion that IP is something inherently in your possession.  I can
> > actually hold my bushel of corn, and as long as I hold it someone else
> > can't.  By pretending IP has the same nature, one falsely
> > naturalizes--us Lukacsian's say "reify"--the "thing" that one "has."
> 
> I have a worse problem with "IP" than with "copyright bargain".  The
> copyright bargain is one that society (through its elected legislature)
> supposedly made with authors.  The current problem is that the legislature
> acted in the interests of lobbyists rather than the electorate.
> -- 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Actually, this current bargain is one that society made with the
Publishers, not with the Authors.  From an author's point of view,
supplying content to multiple publishers simulataneously would be no
problem as long as the author got paid for each copy -- and highly
desirable in some cases, where your publisher won't promote your book
aggressively, and you believe that you could get more work out of a
different publisher.  There is protection for the author from having a
thief claim your work as his or her own, but that is not the same
thing.  The Publishers claim that they need the monopoly profits,
because they need the rents to support investing in Authors at all.
Should we believe them?

Laura Creighton