linuxaudio.org

--f46d04016cad8a9cdf04d32d06bc

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM, drew Roberts  wrote:
> On Sunday 13 January 2013 08:33:39 Paul Davis wrote:

quoted text
> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Dan MacDonald

> wrote:

> > > If you happen not to like it and you are pro copyrights and non-free

> > > software then [... ]

> >

> > just to nitpick ... "pro-copyrights" makes no sense. The GPL is founded

> in

> > and on copyright law. Without copyrights, the GPL would be unenforceable,

> > and arguably meaningless.

>

> Hardly. The belief is that software should not be subject to copyright.

> GPL is

> the legal judo to try to get to that state where the law has not changed.

>

> The only thing lost were software to be made not subject to copyright

> would be

> the ability to require source code. I think I recall RMS writing to the

> effect that without copyright, the benefit of hiding source would go away

> for

> most? software.

>

without copyright laws to allow an "intellectual property" owner to dictate

what the terms of using their creations are, the GPL would have no meaning,

because nothing could require reciprocal "openness". it would basically be

a BSD-license style situation.
copyright law is what requires someone using copylefted software to obey

the terms of GPL. no copyright law - no enforcement.
now, if you wish to be suitably idealist, you could suggest that we really

want copyright law to be replaced by copyleft, with similar powers of

enforcement. RMS did acknowledge early on that although this might be the

best possible arrangement (at least vis-a-vis software), that it was not

likely to happen in any foreseeable time.
>

quoted text
> (The above really only holds where software is also not subject to patent

> protection as well I think.)

>

> In essence it depends on copyright to undo copyright effects. Without

> copyright law, copyright law would have no negative effects to undo.

>

there would also be no way to require anyone to honor my intentions that my

source code be made available to anyone that my software is distributed to.
--f46d04016cad8a9cdf04d32d06bc

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

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM, drew Roberts <zo=

tz@100jamz.com> wrote:

On S=

unday 13 January 2013 08:33:39 Paul Davis wrote:

quoted text
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Dan MacDonald <allcoms@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If you happen not to like it and you are pro copyrights and non-f=

ree

quoted text
> > software then [... ]

>

> just to nitpick ... "pro-copyrights" makes no sense. The GPL=

 is founded in

quoted text
> and on copyright law. Without copyrights, the GPL would be unenforceab=

le,

quoted text
> and arguably meaningless.

Hardly. The belief is that software should not be subject to co=

pyright. GPL is

the legal judo to try to get to that state where the law has not changed.
The only thing lost were software to be made not subject to copyright would=

 be

the ability to require source code. I think I recall RMS writing to the

effect that without copyright, the benefit of hiding source would go away f=

or

most? software.without copyright laws =

to allow an "intellectual property" owner to dictate what the ter=

ms of using their creations are, the GPL would have no meaning, because not=

hing could require reciprocal "openness". it would basically be a=

 BSD-license style situation.

copyright law is what requires someone using copylefted soft=

ware to obey the terms of GPL. no copyright law - no enforcement.now, if you wish to be suitably idealist, you could suggest that w=

e really want copyright law to be replaced by copyleft, with similar powers=

 of enforcement. RMS did acknowledge early on that although this might be t=

he best possible arrangement (at least vis-a-vis software), that it was not=

 likely to happen in any foreseeable time.

=A0
(The above really only holds where software is also not subject to patent

protection as well I think.)
In essence it depends on copyright to undo copyright effects. Without

copyright law, copyright law would have no negative effects to undo.there would also be no way to require anyone =

to honor my intentions that my source code be made available to anyone that=

 my software is distributed to.

=A0
--f46d04016cad8a9cdf04d32d06bc--