gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU License, Again


From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:15:06 +0100

Ter, 2007-05-22 às 12:00 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> On May 22, 1:09 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <address@hidden> wrote:
> Even though the GPL program part though is also workable as a
> separate program -- it's just the non-GPL one that isn't? 

How can I know that? You only talk about vague examples and circular
reasoning, and seem to be asking the same questions again and again.

Does your program include code? Or does it just launch another program?
Without specifics how can one reach the conclusion you just did? It
makes no sense.

> So I am
> right -- the point is to *create more free code*, not to just preserve
> the freedom of one specific piece of code (which the distribution
> I outlined above would, in fact, do.).

The point of the GNU GPL is to preserve the freedom, and be a catalyst
for more freedom. If you want to include a GPL'ed program into your own,
even if only a bit (greater than fair use, of course), you have to
respect the license's conditions: the whole must be released under the
same terms.

If you don't like that, the answer is simple: don't do it. Write your
own code. Otherwise it looks like you only want to be a leech!

>  This is the problem -- it's
> this
> philosophical idea that code _must_ be free.

This is not the problem, this is the solution, the problem is that
people are abusing copyright law and extending restrictions.

>  Did you know that
> the Copyright Act makes it the _exclusive_ right of the author to
> make and distribute copies? Although they can also permit others
> to do so if they want, they are not required to do that, and you
> seem to see this as bad, or "evil" somehow.

The idea behind modern copyright is to give authors a temporary monopoly
which they can use over publishers in order to have huge advantage when
negotiating potentially lucrative terms.

The idea behind it being temporary, is that after a short period the
work becomes public domain in order to increase the public pool of
knowledge and culture.

Many recent laws have been distorting copyright in extremely damaging
terms, and one of the most active agents has been Disney, for instance.

>  Do you want the CA
> amended, then? Why not go and lobby Congress for this, then?

I don't have a representative in the American Congress, the rest of the
world needs vote emancipation, since the USA's actions affects us all
while we have absolutely no voting power :)

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]