[OT] What is Open Source? (fwd)

[Paul Rubin]

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.