[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
- From: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:20:01 -0700
> > > But the original question is if the means is
> > > system wide, can they assert ownership of means.
> > "Can" or "should"? If it's a private system,
> > there would be no problem in either sense ...
> Or what is the extent of the *system*?
Yes, the bigger systems must not be viewed as
"private". That's as true of intellectual or social
ecologies as biological ones: when they're so big
they include the observer, there can be no "outside".
> claims are that MS wants to control "the ontology
> of life on the Internet" which isn't exactly a private
I thought _that_ was the original issue, actually.
Nobody really objects to one company controlling
a small and isolated chunk of the world, such as
their own Intranet. Choosing MS techology to
do so might be reasonable in some cases.
What's a problem is when people cease to have
realistic alternatives ... or similarly, when the system
is no longer small/isolated. It's crossed a qualitative
boundary and ceases being a true private resource.
Similar logic applies to all public resources, such
as public transport or the power grid. (Or the
Internet.) Granting private entities too much control
over public resources is exactly analagous to ensuring
that tails can indeed wag dogs.