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

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

Re: GNU License, Again


From: mike3
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: 23 May 2007 18:42:50 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On May 23, 1:15 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
>

So I was right -- it is to create additional free code. In exchange
for
using the free code, I have to provide more free code.

> 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!
>

Of course.

> >  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.
>

I would not extend restrictions, though. For example, I could
release a software under a license that would be essentially
a mirror of the ORIGINAL copyright law before Hollywood
screwed it up, with NO DRMs or anything else like that.

> >  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.
>

That's right.

> 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.
>

And therefore once the stuff loses significant market value, I'd have
no problem releasing it to the public domain, or under a free software
license instead of tightening up and trying to milk every last drop of
cash I possibly can hope to milk from it.

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

But that's not the type of license I would release my code under.
(Provided my code does not use GPL -- now I am discussing
copyright philosophy, not the GPL code use stuff) Rather, I would
do something that is closer to the original copyright law -- it would
allow for _all_ fair uses clearly and explicitly, there would be no
DRMs or spying machines, etc. no "product activation", none of that
type of crap. There would still be controls on copying, so I could
still
make a profit -- however even these would be relaxed, ie. you
could make backups for your own personal use, or install it on
every computer you yourself (or your company) owns. I would
not mind doing this because I am not all that greedy.

In addition, whatever software is finally released as "free" software,
ie. like stuff that has lost it's profitmaking punch that I'm not
going to
greedily try and squeeze more cash out of, or software specifically
intended to be free from the start, etc. would be released under a
free software license that is otherwise identical to the GPL except
that if one uses some of the code in their programs the only thing
that has to be made free is that specific code, nothing else.

> >  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 :)
>

But of course, if one wants to release something they make
under a different license with more permissibility, then one can.

> 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...?
>
>  signature.asc
> 1KDownload




reply via email to

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