* Erin S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-05 18:36:59 -0800]: > I just have a few questions... I was a debator for a few years, so I > was rather interested by this letter. However, I'm afraid I just don't > understand certain points--perhaps because I have not followed all of > the arguments being given... (or perhaps there's just no logical basis > to the position being presented... I'm afraid that I suspect this...)
I'm afraid I agree with you. :) I don't claim to be an expert on this issue at all, but here are my thoughts. > First of all: > How does the GPL contradict with the goal of "[promoting] the Progress > of Science and the useful arts"? > In my experience with the Open Source Community, it appears that the > GPL does a very good job of propelling us toward the attainment of this > goal. Even if it doesn't, I don't see how it prevents us from reaching > it. The practice of making money off of "the Progress of Science and the useful arts" is a strong inducement for many folks to try to make Science Progress and the arts useful. It seems that SCO feels that their business is threatened by GPL'd software, and they seem to state that with the reduction or removal of their (SCO's) ability to make lots of money, SCO will be unable (and therefore, of course, no-one will be able) or willing to help Science Progress or the arts become useful. Now of course, that is a load of undesirable matter, as you go on to point out. > It [GPL] doesn't prevent people from creating their own software, > copyrighting it, and then releasing it under whatever license they > would like... Any person or company who would like to do so is > welcome, in so far as they do not use GPLed code. That single > restriction doesn't really restrict them much, as they would not have > the GPLed code to use if they did not have the GPL... But we wants it, Precioussss! we wants the GPL code... > Secondly: > I don't fully (or even in part) understand the relevance of the Eldred > v Ashcroft case that they discuss. The Eldred v Ashcroft case deals > with works which were originally placed under copyright. The current > case deals with works which the authors choose to license in a free > way. I don't see any connection. > I believe their position would be valid if the FSF was arguing that > copyrights and "unfree" licenses ought to be eliminated, or that > companies ought to be required to release all code (regardless of > inclusion of GPLed code) as free software. However, as I understand > it, the FSF is not arguing for that... As far as I understand it, "copyright" means the right of author of a work (or someone to whom the author has transferred the copyright) to license or sell the work. The copyright on (say) the source code for ls(1) is the same as the copyright on Unixware. It's just the license that differs. > Anyway, if anybody has a better understanding of what SCO is trying to > say, I'd love to hear it... > ~Erin > p.s. I would love to have a debate round on this.... :) i might > potentially be able to argue even SCO's position better than they > do..... :) I must agree with you and Stuart here. :) > ===== > http://www.userfriendly.org > -- Arlie Capps CS student at BYU ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
