Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sm!rk" data-source="post: 318323" data-attributes="member: 6467">I partially agree with your assesment of our current copyright concept, and the bad signs on which way it is heading. But, it is what it is. Law or no law, pcgen is not making a statement of civil diobediance, they are using wotc IP to create value in their product.Your cd analogy does not apply, for the same reason that I can't say "oh I don't have a cd burner so hence can't make a "backup" so can you send me the full cd in mp3 format, thx!" You can freely copy for your personal use because simply there is no enforceable way to prevent that, give away that which you cannot hold.Thats only if the other product is also OGC, which pcgen upto v3 was not (and are still repairing now). These are the same concepts used in GPL, if I make some GPL software you can use it and reuse it as long you also follow the GPL. If you are not GPL then you certainly cannot use other GPL. LGPL is a bit different.I take a harder line than that, the mere fact that they have violated it for 2 years should show that they aren't doing anything in good faith. They willfully used non-SRD, non-OGC for at least 2 years. Thats pretty shaky logic. Silence means exactly that, nothing. Is the material OGC? If no, then you can't use it, simple. Just because you *want* to use it, doesn't make it a moral imperative for wotc to come forward and let you know wether you can or can't.The one with the gold makes the rules. You complaining about that just sounds like whining. Its *their* ball, they *can* take it home with them.So there is no innovation in commercial software? But I agree pcgen has lots of innovation, I'm still astounded by the skill it took to get 5 different window edge effects on the same screen.It was nothing about compensate. It was to encourage you to put it in paper (etc) so that all the people could benefit. You could give it for free or sell it, but it is protected from being "copied" by another entity. The base concept is really simple.Yes and that is exactly why we have copyright, so that you can print your idea and we *all* can benefit. Its just that for the first gazillion years you have strict "copying rights". So I can't take your idea, add nothing to it, then reprint it and make money. Pcgen is doing exactly that.Is that a rephrashed version of, no true scotsman would argue for IP? I think so.You either support it or you don't. If you don't support it then you have civil disobediance and other means to protest. Pcgen is doing none of that, they are within the system trying to benefit from using the IP, they aren't making any stand for protest. They are personally benefitting from the use of the IP. I would guess Stallman would be outraged to hear that they are violating copyright and earning money from doing so, all under the name of LGPL.Oh my. Is that so? The simple fact that Napster existed to transfer IP should already prove that "it" (music in this case) very much is already property, maybe its your view of property that is outdated and at odds with society, property is not so much attached to real world mass than value.There is no struggle, there is no war. People have been voilating copyright and reselling copies since the birth of it all. This means nothing about the validity of copyright, for the same reason that people still murdering doesn't mean that murder should be legal. Automatic weapons, explosives makes wholesale killing as easy as the internet makes pirating music, books and software, this says nothing about the validity of laws setup to prevent either action.What it really is, is power, and with that comes responsibility, most people cannot handle that level and will abuse it, by pirating or killing people.If I have learned anything from D&D it is that there are 9 alignments. My morality is that of true neutral, we differ, so which one of us is right? (That last part you can't learn from D&D.)</blockquote>

Verification