[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU General Public License?

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GNU General Public License?
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:27:13 +0100

Hey, enjoy GNUtian view on IP (it "indeed is not 
property and belongs to the state _under_ _current_ _laws_").

GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
> > Fung wrote:
> >
> > [... the GPL ...]
> >
> > The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU Republic in a nearby
> > alternative universe where First Sale is nonexistent, IP is not
> > property (it belongs to the state),
> "Intellectual property" indeed is not property and belongs to the
> state _under_ _current_ _laws_.  The originators have _limited_ rights
> for exploiting them, limited in extent and time.  Copyright and
> patents _expire_, not by an act of the state confiscating the said
> "intellectual property", but by the state relinquishing his special
> protection for time-limited exclusive exploitation, granted in
> exchange for the act of publishing, passing the work into the public.

You do know that works in public domain are subject to appropriation 
by anyone, eh?

> > and where distributing software under any "license" other than the
> > GPL (which is akin to a lottery or any other permits from the state
> > and is of course not a contract or a property right in the GNU
> > Republic) or "GPL compatible" license (but that's for extra
> > regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law.
> You are babbling.  Of course you were babbling above as well, but I
> chose to use that as an excuse for showing something people tend not
> to realize.

Well, the GNU Law is about this:

"RMS: ... the source code might not be available or they might try to 
 use contracts to restrict the users instead. So making software free 
 is not as simple as ending copyright on software: it's amore complex 
 situation than that. In fact, if copyright were simply abolished from 
 software then we would no longer be able to use copyleft to protect 
 the free status of a program but meanwhile the software privateers 
 could use other methods--contracts or withhlding the source to make
 software proprietary. So what would mean is, if we release a free 
 program some greedy bastard could make a modified version and publish 
 just the binaries and make people sign non-disclosure agreements for 
 them. We would no longer have a way to stop them." 


reply via email to

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