> From: Asheesh Laroia > I just want to point out here that the "If you distribute modified > binaries, you must also distribute modified source code" provision of the > GNU General Public License - the key tenet of "copyleft" proposed by the > Free Software Foundation - would not work without copyright.
This is a tricky one. The reason why the GPL obliges no obfuscation, is because copyright incentivises obfuscation. Howver, without copyright, no-one will buy obfuscated software because it will be given away for nothing. People will only pay for software in the form of source code - for then they will actually have the software they are buying, rather than simply the use of it (which they will already have for nothing as a promotional demo for the real thing). A big problem in understanding why the GPL doesn't need copyright, is that people imagine the GPL without the force of copyright, but still within a framework in which copyright continues to exist (because its absence is tricky to conceive). This doesn't work. You must imagine an environment without copyright, and then every single one of the GPL's requirements will be unnecessary. There will be no need to compel disclosure of source code, because its disclosure will be correctly valued in the free market (unaffected by copyright's monopolistic privileges). So, copyleft is redundant in the absence of copyright. It's a bit like saying without subzero temperatures the igloo could not remain viable as a habitable shelter, ipso facto mankind needs to preserve a subzero climate in order to ensure igloo manufacturers can continue their business and provide us all with comfortable dwellings. Well, the idea is that without subzero temperatures you wouldn't need igloos, you could get by with less frigid structures. Not a perfect metaphor by any means, but it's in the right direction. > Here you ask us avoid invoking "anthropomorphological liberty"... Yes I caution against mistaking 'free' as applying to culture rather than the community that creates it. > ...and here you write comparing copyrighted works to slaves. Not at all. I compare the suspension of a persons's liberty for the commercial benefit of one who enslaves them, to copyright's suspension of artists' liberty for the benefit of the publisher who exploits their consequent monopoly, or sells restoration of that liberty to those artists who wish to enjoy it - these days, at great expense. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
