On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of > another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something > important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced > publication or the Affero bit are onerous. > > Free software should create a sort of economy in which things are the > way they would be if there were no copyrights at all. That's the > intuition.
[snip] > One thing remains: the requirement of the GPL that source be > transmitted. In a no-copyright world, you would not have to give > source, so why am I happy with this requirement? Precisely because > the important rights are the right to copy *and* the right to modify, > and the distribution of the source preserves everyone's right to > modify. This is a wrinkle built in to the nature of software. Actually, the GPL goes beyond this, because of sections 6, and 7. In a world without copyright, there would be no limitation on other restrictions (such as contractual) being placed on distribution. Effectively, these sections prevent non-copyright restrictions from being placed on the code. But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist without copyright law. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
