Copyright
Posted Dec 12, 2008 3:27 UTC (Fri) by
martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
In reply to:
Copyright by dlang
Parent article:
Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations
many people do believe that the code they write should be able to be
used by anyone for any purpose, those people select BSD licenses.
That is simply not true. Please explain how I can legally use BSD code
after it is compiled and included in some proprietary binary? - I can't.
You did say anyone, not just the first person to receive the code.
other people believe that other people should be able to use the software
they write, but only if you share your changes.
Many people believe that this requirement is only an ethical requirement
to help counteract the evil of copyright. If this were the only thing
that copyright provided, I certainly would deem it unethical. It is only
because of copyright that the restrictions that the GPL imposes are
honorable. It's a little like Robin Hood stealing from the rich, we honor
it because he is presumably stealing back what was stolen from the poor in
the first place. If the rich however acquired their loot ethically his
actions would be dispecable.
if you eliminated copyright entirely it would be like making everything
be under the BSD license (you may be able to copy something without
violating copyright, but if the source isn't published you can't get at it
to copy it)
No, not at all. Without copyright all code would be much closer to the
GPL. As mentioned above, with BSD code I may be prohibited from using
your code if it is relabeled proprietary. This cannot happen to any code
without copyright. The worst that can happen without copyright is code
obfuscation and tivoization, but there would be no legal barriers!!! As
mentioned in my parent post, this would just lead to better tools to deal
with obfuscation and tivoization making the code effectively GPL. I did
forget about tivoization in my parent post, but that is only a GPL3
protection.
(
Log in to post comments)