Re: Summary of Nature of Software

I noted various errors of "political doctrine" on the page, but found it
noteworthy as a page pulling a treatment of the nature of software together
and then describing the implications for policy based more or less directly
on that.

I don't agree with the reading of mysticism you find in the one line you
cite, though.  The distinction between mind and matter is about as
self-evident as you can possibly get, though that distinction is one whose
nature empirical approaches often have difficulty addressing, even
acknowledging in the first place.  There can be no empirical or inductive
foundation for our consciousness of certainty, for instance, as in for
instance the absolute certainty we have regarding pure logic.

But then again despite this self-evidence which many, particularly
philosophers, recognize, there has always been a rift between those who
reference this form of evidence and those who maintain reductively
empiricist standpoints.  That rift survives in such areas as the present-day
field of consciousness research, whose participants often disparage such
observations as veering into a supposedly mystified "dualism," when in fact
those who recognize the nature of the distinction naturally disavow attempts
to reduce such areas to causality.


Seth

Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> 
> > > http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/cost/index.en.html#softecon
> >
> >   2.Software developed by one man (ex. the Linux operating system, the
> 
>         As I'm sure Richard M. Stallman would remind us, the
> GNU/Linux operating system was not developed by one man.
> 
>         Remember, Open Source is a business model, it's Free Software
> which is a moral stance :-). That is, from the perspective of business
> models, there is much to be said for an open system as opposed to a
> closed one, proprietary corporate culture notwithstanding. But it's
> not magic. That cuts both ways.
> 
>         I agree with the general ideas of the paper. But I think
> it's unconvincing to anyone outside of the choir, because it wraps
> the argument too much in a kind of mysticism:
> 
> > Moreover they make it necessary to define a clear limit to the
> > patent system in order not to let crude control mechanisms which were
> > designed for material objects reach out into the sphere of the human mind.
> 
>         While I think this is basically right, it's right for more
> more subtle reasons that aren't being served well by arguing this as
> a self-evident distinction.
> 
> --
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  [email protected]  http://sethf.com
> Interview: http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=03/12/16/0526234
> Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DMCA-Activists mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca-activists

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.