Indeed, more than you perhaps realize. I understand the current law regarding patents and copyright. That's not to say I am a lawyer by any means (in fact I've hurt people for calling me a lot less), but I've owned both copyright and utility patent protection (I've never held a design patent).

I may have stated my case poorly, but it was not my intent to argue against our current system. The truth is that given the opportunity to do so, I doubt that I would change much about our current system (except possibly to tweek it in ways suggested by Rob).

My point instead was one of philosophy. Right v wrong, not legal v illegal. This is why I respectfully disagree with Steve when he says that if you receive something for free you should ecpect to pay it back in some way. That is diametrically wrong. If you have to pay it back in any way, either monetarily or via service-in-kind, it isn't free. If I give you something for free, it is unseemly for me to return later and insinuate some kind of entitlement.

If the Open Source zealots want repayment, let them negotiate for it up front. If they want to share their wares for private use only, with the caveat that they remain entitled to any derived commercial value, that's fine too. Just do so up front. But don't come back after giving a gift and demand remuneration.

And if you, Steve, being a decent human being, should choose to make some contribution to the cause, good for you! That's admirable. But don't come back later and give Craig grief about his being unwilling to contribute to the cause even though he is capable. That's not just unseemly, it's downright repugnant.

Rob wrote, concerning my making the comparison to Marxism,


From what I've read of their posts, I have no doubt that these Open Sourcers would jump at any opportunity to impose their "ideals" on others, and by any means they could. I don't know if they'd call their "plan" a "paradigm" or a "manifesto," but I absolutely belive they would use either civil law or legislation or the decrees of unelected bureaucrats in the Federal Register to compell participation if they could. They're already trying to use flawed reasoning and peer pressure to create entitlement and to coerce cooperation. Why would any thinking person believe they will stop there. As I said before, just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Similarly, whether it's imposed by a king, a parliment or a mob of one's peers, tyranny is tyranny.

As for UT/OU, I really don't have a dog in that fight. I root for the New Orleans Saints. That's pretty much the sum total of my sports enthusiasm. (When I was at UT Dallas, during the Michael Irvin, Emmitt Smith and Troy Aikman heyday of the Dallas Cowboys, I bought a special silk New Orleans Saints tie to wear at my dissertation defense.)