RE: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> If someone makes an unauthorized copy of your source
> code, they may have infringed your copyright, but they have not stolen your
> source code. You still have possession of that.

Of course! I'm not nearly as dense as to believe otherwise :-)

No metaphor is perfect, and I hope I didn't give the impression that
the piracy metaphor was even close to perfect. But the idea that
information can be stolen already has a strong foothold in the public
mind, even among the Free Software and Open Source movements. For
example, I have often heard that one should use a copyleft rather than
an unrestricted license so that "the source code can't be stolen."

-- 
David Johnson
_

RE: Plan 9 license

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Well, I guess my view is distinct from both Richard Stallman's and David
Johnson's. Unlike Stallman, I think Eric Raymond was technically accurate in
his use of the term 'piracy.' I do not agree, however, that the metaphor is
a very good one. The connotation of piracy tends to distort the distinction
between theft and copyright infringement is very troubling ways. Copyright
infringement is not theft. It may "feel" like theft to the victim, but, in
fact, the copyright owner usually still has possession of the embodiment of
the copyright interest. If someone makes an unauthorized copy of your source
code, they may have infringed your copyright, but they have not stolen your
source code. You still have possession of that. Conversely, if someone
steals your car, you do not have possession of it. Hence, the metaphor of
piracy is technically accurate, but to the extent that it connotes theft in
the minds of those who think of pirates on the high seas and all of that,
the metaphor is not an apt analogy for copyright.

Rod

> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:48 PM
> To: Richard Stallman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
>
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
> > unauthorized copying.  That word is a propaganda term, designed to
> > imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
> > ship.
>
> The image of pillaging bucanneers may be an unfortunate association,
> but it is metaphorically correct. If information can indeed be owned,
> and right or wrong the law says it can be, then violating copyright is
> akin to theft. Comparing piracy to committing copyright "theft" on the
> "high seas" of the internet is an apt metaphor.
>
> --
> David Johnson
> _
> 
>

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:

> There are other equally usable terms that do not carry the same
> polemical associations with evil and violence.  "Bootlegging" comes
> readily to mind.

Which is way I also dislike the terms "slavery", "subjugation" and
"domination" in reference to closed source software. These terms also
have polemical associations with evil and violence. If one metaphor is
wrong, then so is the other.

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
> unauthorized copying.  That word is a propaganda term, designed to
> imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
> ship.

The image of pillaging bucanneers may be an unfortunate association,
but it is metaphorically correct. If information can indeed be owned,
and right or wrong the law says it can be, then violating copyright is
akin to theft. Comparing piracy to committing copyright "theft" on the
"high seas" of the internet is an apt metaphor.

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: OpenSales -- DRAFT developers agreement

[Rick Moen]

begin David Johnson quotation:

> "You desire to _forever_ license all of your Contributed Code ...
> under the terms of the GNU GPL." Forever is a hell of a long time.

This concerns the licence of the copy to which that licence is attached.
That should be clear from context.

-- 
Cheers,   "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm 
Rick Moen for a day.  Set a man on fire, and he will be warm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   for the rest of his life."   -- John A. Hrastar

Re: Plan 9 license

[Rick Moen]

begin Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. quotation:

> ...Instead, [Eric Raymond] was, apparently, responding to the
> plaintiff's inaccurate characterization that the open source movement
> supports copyright infringement. In this respect, his use of the term
> makes sense and is correct. (Merriam Webster's Dictionary:  piracy -
> "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or
> conception esp. in infringement of a copyright")

You appear to have ignored Mr. Stallman's point:  Citing one numbered
item from a dictionary definition disregards the neighbouring numbered 
items for the same word and, more to the point, the _connotations_
(i.e., Stallman's point about "the moral equivalent of attacking a
ship").

There are other equally usable terms that do not carry the same
polemical associations with evil and violence.  "Bootlegging" comes
readily to mind.

-- 
Cheers,   "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm 
Rick Moen for a day.  Set a man on fire, and he will be warm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   for the rest of his life."   -- John A. Hrastar

RE: Plan 9 license

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Hmm... I wish I had noticed the context of the statements below. I missed
the thread of this discussion.

I am puzzled why the GPL permits private (or in-house) distributions of
modifications to be kept private; the advantages seem to be outweighed by
the disadvantages. Doesn't this essentially keep a good deal of software
development secret or undisclosed?

Rod

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
>
>
> My understanding was that a legal entity can make private
> modifications to GPL software and is allowed to keep those
> modifications private,
>
> That is our interpretation.  In other words, using a copy
> within the company is not distribution to others.
>
> So, since a corporation is allowed to make private changes, I don't
> see why they could not instruct their employees to keep those changes
> private to the company.
>
> I believe that they can.
>

RE: Plan 9 license

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

I agree that the term "piracy" has taken on an inappropriate connotation
when copyright owners use the term as if it meant theft. To be fair to Eric
Raymond, it looks as if his use of the term was not along this line.
Instead, he was, apparently, responding to the plaintiff's inaccurate
characterization that the open source movement supports copyright
infringement. In this respect, his use of the term makes sense and is
correct. (Merriam Webster's Dictionary:  piracy - "the unauthorized use of
another's production, invention, or conception esp. in infringement of a
copyright")

Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
>
>
> I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
> unauthorized copying.  That word is a propaganda term, designed to
> imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
> ship.
>
>

Re: Plan 9 license

[Angelo Schneider]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> > --
> > Von:  Richard Stallman[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 1. September 2000 14:59:11
> > An:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Betreff:  Re: Plan 9 license
> > Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
> >
> I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
> unauthorized copying.  That word is a propaganda term, designed to
> imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
> ship.

Yes, I agree with RMS here. We should not call it piracy but
slavery. Unauthorized copying of intellectual capital/property
means denying the freedom of the IP holder.

Just like slavery denied the freedom of man.

Regards,
   Angelo 


Please support a software patent free EU, visit 
 http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html

--
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24   Patterns/FrameWorks  Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe   C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467

Re: Plan 9 license

[Richard Stallman]

I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
unauthorized copying.  That word is a propaganda term, designed to
imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
ship.

Re: Plan 9 license

[Richard Stallman]

My understanding was that a legal entity can make private
modifications to GPL software and is allowed to keep those
modifications private,

That is our interpretation.  In other words, using a copy
within the company is not distribution to others.

So, since a corporation is allowed to make private changes, I don't
see why they could not instruct their employees to keep those changes
private to the company.

I believe that they can.

Re: List of Licenses -- as of 8-14-00

[Gregor Hoffleit]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 02:23:36PM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>  LIST OF APPROVED LICENSES FOLLOWS
> * Python License: http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html

I guess this now points to the new, CNRI Python 1.6b1 license. Since all
stable releases of Python up to now have been released under an other
license, much shorter and BSD-type like, and since this is currently widely
known as *the* Python license, would it be possible to determine the above
license as CNRI license or CNRI Python license ?

To a separate note: Has the old traditional Python license ever formally
approved by OSI ? If so, it would be nice to add it to the list of approved
licenses as well. If not yet, could you give a look at it ?

Gregor


 PGP signature