Re: [OS:N:] Another multiple response (Basic rights warmed up in the microwave again)

James Michael DuPont <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
I am the only one here who is interested in the student rights and
freedoms.
<<

Puhleeze! Don't be disingenuous.

>>
Most of you are talking about yourselves and what you do with
the money you make, and how much you need it.
<<

No, we're trying to get you to abandon the notion you seem to hold that we
are Evil Conspiracists, out to rip off others. We're just working stiffs,
trying to put food on the table. It doesn't matter how much I or others
need it, what's important is that you recognise that we are working
professionals who have a right to charge for our work, since it's how we
live. And you *don't* have any right to over-ride that. Got it?

>>
If they dont want to give them to you, no there is not.
<<

Sigh. No, there isn't, full stop. The author has the right to dispose of it
as he sees fit. He can give it away for free, he can sell it, he can create
and sell derivative works, or he can choose to licence it via the GPL and
*that* in turn confers both rights and responsibilities on the recipient.

>>
Is copyright not enough for you? Copyright protects your works, why to
you need more?
<<

No, copyright is all I need. Why do you want to override copyright? Why do
you want the people who have written various media players etc. to give up
their rights? You can use their product, they give it to you for free, it
seems to me you're doing pretty well so far. Why do you think you have a
*right* to more?

>>
All of these EULA try and remove rights that the users have already
have.
<<

No, the users don't already have those rights. You don't have the right to
resell copies of a work, for example, and so on. You'd like a EULA that
removes the rights of the original creator, and all I've been saying is
you're not going to get it.

>>
The point is that all these contracts place more and more restrictions
on the students that were not there to begin with.
<<

Sigh. Like the law restricts people from committing murder?

>>
Lets put it this way, copyright law protects your content, and gives
the users basic rights to use that content.
<<

Thank you. It also protects the software, as well.

>>
Even without the gpl, you have alot more rights as a us citizen than as
somone using the courseware from redhat, because you need to agree to
have a whole load of additional rights taken away from you in the
process of signing up for the course.
<<

What rights? The right to use open source software? The right to remain
silent? The right to bear arms?

>>
The ability to use free software exclusivly is also thrown out the
window in the process. That is why I am here, becuase I see that as a
basic right of a studen. How many times times do I need to repeat
myself?
<<

Is there a "right" to use free software exclusively? I've never heard of
that one. Let me spell it out for you: you are imagining it;. The ability
to use free software exclusively would be a nice thing, especially for
people who don't want to - or cannot - buy anything. The ability to use
Free software exclusively would also be a nice thing, for all of us. But
you are extrapolating something that would be nice, or desirable, into a
right. It's *not* a right. There's where your argument falls down.

Completely free health care for all would be nice. Turns out it's not a
right, in most places. I'd make that a higher priority than free software.

How about completely free-to-air TV services? Doesn't it frost you that
what passes for free-to-air TV is encumbered by intrusive advertising
messages from (often ethically-suspect) corporations? Don't we have a
*right* to better? How about the right to watch cable TV for free? That
would be nice (or so the spam keeps telling me).

You have the right to drive any car you want. Of course, you can't actually
*buy* any car you want. That must be tough, too. Someone ought to speak to
Porsche and Rolls-Royce about that.

You have the right to use whatever software you want. But there are obvious
restrictions on that; when someone sends you an email, you can't use a
spreadsheet to read it. Some programs are easier to use for certain
purposes than others. You might prefer one word processor over another on
the basis of some features. Similarly, a courseware developer will evaluate
their options for content development and delivery, and will make a
considered judgement. It's pretty obvious to me that Red Hat's developers
will have a preference for FOSS wherever possible. But sometimes, they'll
have to sacifice that principle because to do so would compromise
educational effectiveness, for example. In the case of using Flash and
Java, there may well be no open-source equivalent, or not one that meets
their requirements in various ways.

It's a free world. Their choice. Tough. What would you rather have -
educational content that you can view with a freely-downloadable viewer, or
lose that content altogether?

And you always have the choice to just not buy the courseware. That way,
you don't compromise your desire (NOT right) to run all-free software.

Now, just so you can't say that I haven't answered your questions:

>>
Can your students use only free software to take part in your course?
<<

Courses, plural. Of course not. When I cover Windows network client
configuration, the attendees have to use a Windows computer to complete the
exercise. I don't *believe* that condemns their soul to eternal hell-fire
and sermons from Blessed Saint Richard, but no-one has complained. Of
course, you can complete all exercises in my Linux courses using only free
software. (Interesting that when I teach networking, and students have to
use both a Windows machine and a Linux router/server, some of them act as
though I'm taking away their God-given right to use only Microsoft
software. . . I just can't win. . .).

>>
Do they to sign agreements that remove their ability to use
free software exclusivly?
<<

No.

>>
Do they have to submit or accept docuements
in non-standard formats?
<<

No.

>>
Do they have to be bound by contracts that go
futher than the basic copyright laws that protect your content anyway?
<<

No.

>>
Ok. So to prevent that from happening again, the ability of the student
to use %100 free software is also elimintated in the process?
<<

No. People have stolen my courseware by using a photocopier. However,
no-one outside my company or our business partners is going to get content
in electronic form without some kind of tightly-written contract or digital
rights management technology. Bear in mind that this will *never* remove
any of their rights. With digital technology, sadly, it is so easy for
people to trample on original creators' rights that some protection is
necessary. I wish it wasn't so, but. . .

(Feel free to beat up on major record companies, etc. here. My position on
them is that they're pretty much getting what they deserve. On the other
hand, stealing music is still wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right).

The ethical principle of equitability applies here. You should go read up
on it.

Best,

--- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP
[http://www.lesbell.com.au]



_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>