copyleft (was: Re: Owning a piece of my mind)

[Eric Eldred <eldred@mediaone.net>]

Ori Pomerantz wrote:

too much to reply to all at once; i'll break it into parts
and rewrite the subject line.

> > One interesting implication of the GPL is that once it
> > is included in software, it "contaminates" other software.
>         This is incorrect. See
> http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GeneralPublicVirus.html (the Jargon
> file is maintained by Eric S. Raymond, who I assume to be accurate in
> this).

Note that I placed the term in quotes--the actual state
of that "contamination" is uncertain, I think. And I think
this reference to the jargon file is out-of-date and
one-sided.

The copyright or copyleft on General Public Licensed works
is a standard copyright.  However, the license must be
adhered to, else the user has no rights to redistribute the
work (with restrictions) or reuse it.  Thus it is a sort
of shrinkwrap license, similar to the ones that UCITA
intends to enforce in some states.  The GPL allows
redistributing the work only under certain conditions.
Thus it "infects" the work being distributed--the conditions
being inherited also by all subsequent users, and the
conditions are required to be embodied in any software that
is based on it.  (The LGPL is different--software libraries
are covered by a different license, allowing them to be
distributed under new terms, even sold with royalty.) Since the
work cannot be modified without remaining under the GPL,
all works based on it must comply with the GPL.  (I suppose
there can be an argument about what "based on" means,
but the license doesn't allow users just to cut and paste
at will from the software, and then modify the terms of
the license.)

For example, the recent Slashdot discussion on Corel's
licensing terms for its beta release of a Linux distribution
(with added software developed by Corel) focused on a threat
by a Debian/FSF leader to sue Corel because the end-user
license that Corel required users to sign, before receiving
the beta software, excluded minors.  The argument then
revolved around whether or not Canadian law pertaining to
minors made any difference, and whether or not somebody
ought to sue Corel for trying to put any restrictions on
a software release under GPL.  (Eventually, it turned
out that the threat was withdrawn.)

During the discussion various people stated various views
on the GPL--I don't believe there were any lawyers there.
But it became clear that there were some who believed in
some sort of "strict" interpretation of the GPL that
favored "freedom" in the sense of "free beer" rather than
in the sense of the First Amendment, and that demonstrated
quite an antagonism toward software manufacturers who
dared ask for money for their work.  Others, such as
Eric S. Raymond, are more concerned that Linux and other
Open Source (tm) software gain some market momentum, with
the aid of corporations such as Corel, and do not wish
needlessly to antagonize corporate partners.

(Note the distinction between the Free Software Foundation
and the Open Source (tm) movement and Eric S. Raymond's
interpretation of Open Source (tm) --they all seem to have
different ideas about both the GPL and the way we should
approach software such as Linux, and other digital 
products.)

We can debate the GPL endlessly, but until the lawyers
at FSF take somebody to court and a judge explains how
this license is to be interpreted, then we will all keep
debating whether or not GPL means one thing or another.
And no doubt this will have to be done in many countries,
such as Canada and the Czech Republic, since contracts
and licenses and copyrights might be interpreted as
different under different national laws.

My point is that it is not just copyright that is at the
heart of things here, it is also the way licenses for
digital works are treated.  Corporations face this
problem just as much as private individuals, but since
they claim to own intellectual property (while the
public domain is not "owned" in that sense) then they
can trade rights and cross-license the rights with
other corporations.  Corporations are keen to get some
advantage in this licensing game, so they can sue 
competitors and win in court what they cannot win with
technical development.  But private individuals are not
so lucky--they just go to jail for violating the rights
of corporations, or get excluded from the economy.
begin:vcard 
n:Eldred;Eric
tel;home:+1-877-205-6139x8972
tel;work:+1-877-205-6139x8972
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
org:Eldritch Press
version:2.1
email;internet:EricEldred@usa.net
title:Publisher
adr;quoted-printable:;;PO BOX 21=0D=0A;E. DERRY;NH;03041-0021;USA
x-mozilla-cpt:;-16576
fn:Eric Eldred
end:vcard