On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:19:02PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:26:06PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Felipe Contreras wrote at 00:52 (EDT): > >> >> I'm talking about rights. As a user, I don't have any rights, only > >> >> privileges granted by the developer. > >> > > >> > This is where I disagree, in principle. While you're technically > >> > correct that the "rights" of copyright law stay with the copyright > >> > holder, the GPL is clearly designed to pass rights and privileges > >> > along to each who receives distribution. > >> > >> It doesn't matter how the GPL was designed, the GPL doesn't have > >> precedence over the law, and the law doesn't allow a software license > >> to change the nature of copyright law. > > > > The law does not define rights in any philosophical sense. For those > > who believe in rights, they are something that exist prior to the law, > > or evolving independently of law, and which law ideally serves to > > protect but often instead infringes. > > True rights are protected by law, if the law doesn't protect them, > then they are not rights. You can't impose your views of what > constitutes a right to other people, that's the whole reason we have a > common law in the first place.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree then. What you mean by "rights" is a lot different from what many other people, including myself, mean when using the term. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
