On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > This is so patently untrue I cannot imagine how you got here. steady on! :-) > > GPL == GP License > > Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't create > it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own > something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own > it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license > specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the > license. copyright and hence the GPL is not concerned with ownership, it only deals with the right to copy. ownership of the copyrighted "expression of an idea" is in practice not important at all. I have heard people claim that its public domain, though i havnt been able to confirm that. Legal systems dont concern themselves much with the idea of ownership of an idea or its expression as it doesnt really make sense - eg if you give me a copy of your latest mix, in some ways i own it as much as you (although i cant do much with it), as ownership is highly related to possession. Copyright is a totally unnatural utilitarian legal device designed to encourage the nurturing of our culture. i dont however know how 'ownership' is affected by the Moral Rights provisions in the GATT TRIPS agreement. so what was the point of me saying this? none really but i thought Franks mail was quite spot on:-) cheers -- Tim Orford
