On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
A right is not something a person (e.g. a developer) can make it go away on a whim, and that is the case for what the GPL gives to users. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
