Re: GNU licenses

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
>> advent of copyright?
>
> No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
> something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
> with IP market economy.

So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional.
You'll find that anarchy does not tend to work well as a social model.

>> You might be close to Stallman with that sentiment than you think.
>
> Public domain only, with no copyright at all, is not good enough for
> lunatic Stallman ("just eliminating copyright would not make
> software free"):

Oh, it would not make software free as in "comes with source code".
But you'll likely be amazed about what reverse engineering can achieve
once doing it and publishing the results would be legal.

So while it would not an optimal world for RMS, I consider it likely
that he would consider it an improvement over the current state of
affairs.

> [...]
>> You can release whichever works of your own into the public domain.  
>
> I occasionally do. 
>
>> You can't release the work of others into the public domain, however.
>
> Oh dear, that's what the penalty for copyright misuse/anitrust 
> violations (naked price fixing) is about.

But there is no copyright misuse/antitrust violation in connection
with releasing something under the GPL.  Even though you berate judges
as drunk for not agreeing with you there, as long as you are not a
part of the judicial system (God forbid), this is irrelevant.

> Sooner or later it will happen, my dear.

Seeräuber-Jenny.  Your retaliation fantasies are really amusing.

> And don't forget that the GPL is violated left and right anyway and
> it's pretty safe business.
>
> -----
> As Welte states on his blog, "The current rate at which new
> GPL violations get reported and/or discovered, especially from the
> appliance/embedded market, is really alarming. For example, I haven't
> yet seen a single Linux-based NAS product that was even remotely
> license-compliant when first analyzing it. And I'm not only talking
> about the SoHo NAS boxes with one or two hard disk drives, but even
> about enterprise storage systems." 

"when first analyzing it".  Guess why hundreds of perpetrators come
into compliance afterwards rather than risking a court case.

It is more ignorance than planned violation going on here.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum