linuxaudio.org

--f46d04447429aab59804b1d868b4

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hey Fons!
I agree with the fact that your code took lots of time, effort and knowledge

to write. I would however question the obligation of other people to pay you

unless before making your work available to them you have made a contract

with them, in which case this is just work for hire.
If, I argue, you have made your work public, then nobody made a contract

with

you. Simply speaking, nobody asked you to do the work you did. But once it

is

available publicly, I do not see on what grounds you can demand payment.
Notice the words "obligation" and "demands" there. I am not at all saying

one

should not be grateful and/or not be able to pay you willingly.
So my message is that if the work is made public, then nobody should be

obliged

to pay for using that work.
What copyright law does is create a default contract between anyone doing

the work

and the whole public. That contract is enforced on the public. They did not

ask for it,

nor do they have a chance to negotiate it.

And in this light GPL and CC licenses are really *a license on top of a

license* -

basically, things which take the default public contract which is the

copyright law

and scratch out several lines out of it.
This is why I cal GPL and CC a lesser evil. It is a good thing, because it

is a battle

for freedom, but it is evil because it "accepts" the framework of the

enforced contract,

which is the copyright law. It does not accept it willingly, so GPL and CC

are doing good

things in this world, but I do not believe that GPL and CC are an ideal

towards which we

should go. I believe that the better situation would be the absence of

copyright law.
--

Louigi Verona

http://www.louigiverona.ru/
--f46d04447429aab59804b1d868b4

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey Fons!I agree with the fact that your code took lots of time, ef=

fort and knowledgeto write. I would however question the obligation of =

other people to pay youunless before making your work available to them=

 you have made a contract

with them, in which case this is just work for hire.If, I argue, yo=

u have made your work public, then nobody made a contract withyou. Simp=

ly speaking, nobody asked you to do the work you did. But once it is

available publicly, I do not see on what grounds you can demand payment.Notice the words "obligation" and "demands" there.=

 I am not at all saying oneshould not be grateful and/or not be able to=

 pay you willingly.

So my message is that if the work is made public, then nobody should be=

 obligedto pay for using that work.What copyright law does is c=

reate a default contract between anyone doing the workand the whole pub=

lic. That contract is enforced on the public. They did not ask for it,

nor do they have a chance to negotiate it.And in this light GPL and CC =

licenses are really a license on top of a license -basically, th=

ings which take the default public contract which is the copyright law

and scratch out several lines out of it.This is why I=

 cal GPL and CC a lesser evil. It is a good thing, because it is a battlefor freedom, but it is evil because it "accepts" the framework =

of the enforced contract,

which is the copyright law. It does not accept it willingly, so GPL and CC =

are doing goodthings in this world, but I do not believe that GPL and C=

C are an ideal towards which weshould go. I believe that the better sit=

uation would be the absence of copyright law.

-- Louigi Veronahttp://=

www.louigiverona.ru/
--f46d04447429aab59804b1d868b4--