I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes - it is certainly the case that once a thing that exists only conceptually - an idea or composition - is loosed into the world, control of it is difficult at best.

    So let’s narrow the scope.

    TO THE DEGREE THAT the thing might be controlled after being loosed into the world, who has the more reasonable claim to exercise that control? The person who created it or someone else?

    • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      nobody/everybody has the right to claim it. Why should anybody be able to restrict the freedom of somebody else if its own freedom isn’t diminished by any degree?