On Sunday 13 January 2013 10:17:23 Paul Davis wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM, drew Roberts <zotz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday 13 January 2013 08:33:39 Paul Davis wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Dan MacDonald <allcoms@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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. without copyright laws (and patent laws) there would be no "intellectual property" with respect to software so it would not be a BSD-license style situation as there would be no opportunity for forkers etc. to take a program to the All Rights Reserved realm as that realm would not exist. > > copyright law is what requires someone using copylefted software to obey > the terms of GPL. no copyright law - no enforcement. Right but then also no enforcement for those trying to prevent the freeware style dealings of others with respect to their precious binaries. > > 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. > > > (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. This bit is true. But without the corresponding ability to enforce non-distribution of binaries how big of an issue would this be? all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
