"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary.
Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could just ignore the
situation and be happy that someone else thought enough of their creation
to
use it themselves.
I sort of agree with you. If copyright owners were more willing to
freely give away their work, life would be so much easier for all of us.
Unlimited music downloads at no charge. Copy any software of your
choice, no licensing, no cost, no copy protection. Make unlimited copies
of movies and share with others. Copy any appeals court opinion and
freely share with others, without worrying about copyrighted page
numbers. And so on.
It would be great for users.
And, in this ideal world that you wish for, copyright owners would be
happy that "someone else thought enough of their creation to use it", as
you so eloquently stated it.
But a lot of authors would then not create so many creative works.
So what we have now is a compromise. Copyright law gives copyright
owners the right to allow copying and distribution of their software on
their own terms. It's not always convenient to abide by these terms,
but we do end up with more creative works available.
So your point of view, though very idealistic, has some validity. But
your point of view is not mainstream today.
However, there is something to be said for a shorter copyright term.
Today's long copyright terms err in favor of coypright owners, some say
because Disney wanted it that way. I think a coypright term of about 15
years for non-computer literary works, and perhaps 5 years for computer
software, would be ideal.
So I think we can both agree that copyright today goes too far.