Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!orville!fouts From: fouts@orville (Marty Fouts) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: Swedish copyright laws Message-ID: <82@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 12:46:38 EST Article-I.D.: ames.82 Posted: Wed Dec 17 12:46:38 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Dec-86 02:17:30 EST References: <8612171607.AA09065@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> Sender: usenet@ames.UUCP Reply-To: fouts@orville.UUCP (Marty Fouts) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA Lines: 103 In article <8612171607.AA09065@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> tower@prep.ai.mit.edu writes: [I have deleted pieces of this. Don't quote tower from my reply. I have tried not to distort what he said, but go back to his original posting to be sure.] >** Inappropriate for comp.emacs? > (To paraphrase) everything that has been said so far (including this posting) is inappropriate. Would the NEXT author PLEASE move the discussion someplace else. > >** Waste of my time? > >I may rue this posting. I have serious doubt that I will cause >anyone's opinion to change, or even encourage the competitors to >carefully examine the cooperators side. Most of the cooperators have >most carefully examined the competitors side (its almost impossible >to be educated in the US and not get a full dose of the competitors' >reasoning). > This isn't a sides issue. As someone who has successfully used cooperation and competition to achieve results, I would like to point out that there is a time and place for each. It always bothers me when someone assumes I disagree with him because I don't understand his position. (More below) >* Rationale > >My stomach has clenched up once too often at the flaming that comes up >about GNU on comp.emacs. It's (in the MIT idiom) losing. It's based >on misconceptions, misunderstanding, and knee-jerk reactions. This is an excelent way to continue a flaming contest. Pour some oil on the fire. > >My goal is to encourage more reasonable examination of the issues. > Oddly enough, in responding to RMS' diatribe, this was my goal (:-) >* Bias, backgrounds, and mis-understanding > >Many of the people who are flaming or more rationally disagreeing with >rms haven't read many of his earlier postings about his beliefs. I haven't taken a poll, so I don't know how many. I for one have read the GNU Manifesto AND the GNU General Public License (in which the copyright law is invoked to protect the author's property. . .) as well as RMS' letter to the editor of the communications of the ACM (and Das Kapital. ;-) >I advise people to read rms's words carefully, and not let their >backgrounds mis-interpret the words or insert thoughts that aren't >there. > I have read rms. Carefully. Then pondered. I still disagree. His point of view appears naive. Humans compete. They also cooperate. Given the choice they compete. Given the choice they do better in a situation where they receive a direct reward for their effort. >* More background reading A case can be made that competition doesn't always work and has serious problems. A case can also be made that cooperative efforts are prone to misuse and abuse. A favorable treatment of good competition is The Discovers. (I don't remember the author.) Although generally about how discoveries are made, the book is an indirect argument in favor of competition. Also, the discussion of the MIT AI labs in the book Hackers gives some good examples of useful competition in conjunction with cooperation. In competing to see who could squeeze the most cycles out of a code, the AI lab hackers made the code better. In cooperating to make the codes available, they made the competition possible. >* Comments on previous postings > >** USSR /= cooperation > I agree. Not relevent to discussion. > >** Even competitors use cooperative behavior and even cooperators use competitive behavior. (See the above example of the MIT AI lab) >* End >Hoping I have encouraged a more thorough examination of the >cooperative alternative by you competitors. Hoping I have encouraged a more balanced examination of the choice between coopearation and competition by you cooperators. Marty The only thing I ever learned is that every issue has (at least) two sides and the answer lies between them.