Re: Down with anti-Freeman slime! :-)

Vincent D. Skahan (vds7789@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com)
Mon, 17 Jan 1994 11:03:49 -0800 (PST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Michael S. Shappe: "Re: The Freeman/anti-Freeman flamewar"
Previous message: Eric Raymond: "Re: The Freeman/anti-Freeman flamewar"
In reply to: Tim Freeman: "Down with anti-Freeman slime! :-)"

(Tim Freeman writes:)
> Person X writes a FAQ.
> X decides not to ever make money from the FAQ.
> Publisher Y asks X whether Y can make a book
> including the FAQ. Since X has decided not to
> make money from the FAQ, X's profit is not relevant to my
> question. Since Y asked, rudeness on Y's part is not
> relevant to my question.
> Person X refuses unconditionally.
> Publisher Y does not publish the FAQ.
>
> My question is, what motives can we attribute to X in this situation?
> One answer I can come up with myself is some combination of envy and
> covetousness, [...]

And the flames began from the negative nature of that sentence...

Who CARES what their motives are? It's their work. They can put any
terms on it that they want for whatever reason(s) they desire.

They can require potential reprinters to worship purple yaks from Panama on
alternate Sundays and if that's the way they want to play it, that's the way
it should be played.

If they want to restrict the distribution of their work, they should be able
to do it. Nobody has any right as a 'keeper of the valid motives' to
question why somebody wants to restrict the distribution of their work.

It's their work. They can set the terms.

But enough of that tune...

I can definitely see a FAQ writer taking the position that *NOBODY* can take
any money for their work under any circumstances. Some people are idealistic
enough to take the position that information needs to be freely available
where free means absolutely free.

Now, understanding reality that means that the information that is
distributed freely might not reach as much of an audience as it could have
reached. So be it.

My position on the FAQs I write (at home) is that I want to know if they're
redistributed, used in derivative works, etc. in all cases. If people are
using them for any $$$ at all (even reproduction costs) I want to approve
such use in advance. I reserve the right to say yes or no on a case by case
basis without having to justify my actions or reasons to anybody...

But I can also see the definite possibility that there are zealots on the
issue of free flow of information that who would prohibit any for-$$$
use of their work.

The author's desires and/or constraints don't have to be justified to
anybody. They just have to be complied with in order to use their work.
Nobody has the 'right' to question the author's motives. They just have
the duty of complying with the author's wishes on the matter.

-- 
 ----------- Vince Skahan ------ vds7789@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com -----------
     "Did you hear that Mitch Williams got married the other day ?  
      He walked down the aisle and the winning run scored..."
                                                          - David Letterman

Next message: Michael S. Shappe: "Re: The Freeman/anti-Freeman flamewar"
Previous message: Eric Raymond: "Re: The Freeman/anti-Freeman flamewar"
In reply to: Tim Freeman: "Down with anti-Freeman slime! :-)"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]