How to protect a software on linux ?

Sergei Steshenko · 12-06-2013, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evo2

It's not about you. It's about the software.

Evo2.

It is about me and other people. I.e. it is about what I can (not) do with the SW and about what other people can do to me.

SW, as I wrote, does not have freedom of will. SW is created and used by people to fulfill certain needs.

astrogeek · 12-06-2013, 05:40 PM

For reference... http://www.angelfire.com/md/byme/mathsample.html

Another perspective on intellectual property and free ideas...

Code:

By 1676, Leibniz realized that he was onto something “big”; he just didn’t realize that Newton
was on to the same big discovery because Newton was remaining somewhat tight lipped about his breakthroughs.
In fact, it was actually the delayed publication of Newton’s findings that caused the entire controversy.
Leibniz published the first account of differential calculus in 1684 and then published the
explanation of integral calculus in 1686 (Boyer, 1968).

Newton did not publish his findings until 1687. Yet evidence shows that Newton discovered his theories
of fluxional calculus in 1665 and 1666, after having studied the work of other mathematicians such as 
Barrows and Wallis (Struik, 1948).. Evidence also shows that Newton was the first to establish the general 
method called the "theory of fluxions" was the first to state the fundamental theorem of calculus and was 
also the first to explore applications of both integration and differentiation in a single work (Struik, 1948). 
However, since Leibniz was the first to publish a dissertation on calculus, he was given the total credit for the
discovery for a number of years. This later led, of course, to accusations of plagiarism being hurled relentlessly 
in the direction of Leibniz.

Newton's knowledge remained "his" only as long as he did not show it to anyone else, and whatever his reasons, he tried to keep it "his" private property.

Leibniz "freed", liberated that same knowledge by publishing it, albeit in somewhat different form.

Newton's nose was bent out of shape by that and he then wanted full credit for the discoveries. But it was he himself who had kept it from the view of others (hidden, encrypted, kept under key, restricted access) so all he could do was scream "Mine! Mine! Mine!".

Leibniz also wanted credit for the discoveries, and similarly all he could do was scream "Mine! Mine! Mine!".

But the argument over ownership was only a contrivance of the legal linguistics of publishing in the 17th century - the knowlege itself was free once it had fired the necessary synapses in another living brain, as may indeed be how Leibniz came to know it! That was in fact how Newton had come to know it, by reading the knowledge freed by others before him.

The arguments over "ownership" were irrelevant to everyone but Newton, Leibniz and their backers, bankers and publishers. The moon continued in its orbit and projectiles continued to follow parabolic paths without regard to the licensing claims.

But imagine if Newton had never published, and Leibniz had never published, or if they had found a way to publish without making the underlying knowledge more generally available. How much would human progress have been harmed!

Or imagine if Newton had published 20 years earlier - how much would everyone have benefitted?

The key points I am trying to illustrate here are that keeping knowledge secret is harmful to all - discoverer or inventor, and all who might otherwise benefit from it or build on it.

Software is knowledge, it is algorithms and patterns and equations and logic. It is "yours" only so long as you show it to no one else. Once it has fired the synapses in another brain, or directed the sequence of instructions within some hardware - it is free, liberated - it exists. You may argue ownership and licensing all you want, but it is mostly irrelevant to the brains that have contemplated it or the machines capable of running it.

It is time that the human species grows up and frees itself from the artificial and harmful concept that ideas are property. It is a demonstrably harmful absurdity.

astrogeek · 12-06-2013, 05:40 PM

For reference... http://www.angelfire.com/md/byme/mathsample.html

Another perspective on intellectual property and free ideas...

Code:

By 1676, Leibniz realized that he was onto something “big”; he just didn’t realize that Newton
was on to the same big discovery because Newton was remaining somewhat tight lipped about his breakthroughs.
In fact, it was actually the delayed publication of Newton’s findings that caused the entire controversy.
Leibniz published the first account of differential calculus in 1684 and then published the
explanation of integral calculus in 1686 (Boyer, 1968).

Newton did not publish his findings until 1687. Yet evidence shows that Newton discovered his theories
of fluxional calculus in 1665 and 1666, after having studied the work of other mathematicians such as 
Barrows and Wallis (Struik, 1948).. Evidence also shows that Newton was the first to establish the general 
method called the "theory of fluxions" was the first to state the fundamental theorem of calculus and was 
also the first to explore applications of both integration and differentiation in a single work (Struik, 1948). 
However, since Leibniz was the first to publish a dissertation on calculus, he was given the total credit for the
discovery for a number of years. This later led, of course, to accusations of plagiarism being hurled relentlessly 
in the direction of Leibniz.

Newton's knowledge remained "his" only as long as he did not show it to anyone else, and whatever his reasons, he tried to keep it "his" private property.

Leibniz "freed", liberated that same knowledge by publishing it, albeit in somewhat different form.

Newton's nose was bent out of shape by that and he then wanted full credit for the discoveries. But it was he himself who had kept it from the view of others (hidden, encrypted, kept under key, restricted access) so all he could do was scream "Mine! Mine! Mine!".

Leibniz also wanted credit for the discoveries, and similarly all he could do was scream "Mine! Mine! Mine!".

But the argument over ownership was only a contrivance of the legal linguistics of publishing in the 17th century - the knowlege itself was free once it had fired the necessary synapses in another living brain, as may indeed be how Leibniz came to know it! That was in fact how Newton had come to know it, by reading the knowledge freed by others before him.

The arguments over "ownership" were irrelevant to everyone but Newton, Leibniz and their backers, bankers and publishers. The moon continued in its orbit and projectiles continued to follow parabolic paths without regard to the licensing claims.

But imagine if Newton had never published, and Leibniz had never published, or if they had found a way to publish without making the underlying knowledge more generally available. How much would human progress have been harmed!

Or imagine if Newton had published 20 years earlier - how much would everyone have benefitted?

The key points I am trying to illustrate here are that keeping knowledge secret is harmful to all - discoverer or inventor, and all who might otherwise benefit from it or build on it.

Software is knowledge, it is algorithms and patterns and equations and logic. It is "yours" only so long as you show it to no one else. Once it has fired the synapses in another brain, or directed the sequence of instructions within some hardware - it is free, liberated - it exists. You may argue ownership and licensing all you want, but it is mostly irrelevant to the brains that have contemplated it or the machines capable of running it.

It is time that the human species grows up and frees itself from the artificial and harmful concept that ideas are property. It is a demonstrably harmful absurdity.

Sergei Steshenko · 12-07-2013, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek

...
The arguments over "ownership" were irrelevant to everyone but Newton, Leibniz and their backers, bankers and publishers. The moon continued in its orbit and projectiles continued to follow parabolic paths without regard to the licensing claims.
...
It is time that the human species grows up and frees itself from the artificial and harmful concept that ideas are property. It is a demonstrably harmful absurdity.

??????????????

Humans as other biological beings need to survival. And information asymmetry might be the key to survival. Again, critical resources are typically limited.

The idea of property is not at all absurd. If there is no property, there will be constant fight for territory, etc. - like in the animal kingdom. So, there is no "harmful absurdity" - quite the opposite, the idea of property/ownership is quire a stabilizing one.

Another story is concentration of property.

Sergei Steshenko · 12-07-2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek

...
Or imagine if Newton had published 20 years earlier - how much would everyone have benefitted?
...

Why should Newton care about, say, your or my benefits ? He is smart, we are dumber.

k3lt01 · 12-07-2013, 08:19 PM

Sergei, licenses are placed by the original author. Yyou are free to choose if you will use the software or not. You are also free to choose if you will take part in the conditions of the license (as applied by the original author) or not. If you choose not then you use your free will to decide not to use it. Simple isn't it!

Everything else you have said has been interesting but I won't comment here (simply because with my luck I'll be the one who gets in trouble for going off-topic) even though I would like to cause so many of your "understandings" are just wrong. Suffice to say software freedom does not equal human condition freedom.

Sergei Steshenko · 12-07-2013, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3lt01

Sergei, licenses are placed by the original author. Yyou are free to choose if you will use the software or not. You are also free to choose if you will take part in the conditions of the license (as applied by the original author) or not. If you choose not then you use your free will to decide not to use it. Simple isn't it!
...

I don't deny the statement. The point in the light of copy-protection is that license by itself implies honor system.