[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd]
From: |
Ted Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd] |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:55:41 -0500 |
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 22:52 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/12 Ted Smith <address@hidden>
> Did you mean to take this off-list?
>
>
> Woops....no!
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 21:59 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/12 Ted Smith <address@hidden>
> > On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 21:47 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez
> wrote:
> > > Sorry, correction
> > >
> > > No copyright, no need of the GPL. ;-)
> > >
> >
> > If there's no copyright, we can't magically summon
> source from
> > anywhere.
> > We can just copy binaries without any persecution.
> In the
> > meantime,
> > software hoarders will take free source code and put
> shackles
> > on it.
> >
> > ¿How?
> >
>
> By releasing it under non-free terms, refusing to provide
> source, etc.
>
> Isn't this what they do already?
>
Yup. See a reason why they'd stop?
>
> The only thing they would be unable to do is prosecute us for
> copying
> binaries. You can't get source from reverse-engineering.
>
> You can't do that with non free software either but you would be able
> to legally reverse engineer.
>
..which would not get us source, so the software would still be non-free
unless very large efforts were put towards reverse-engineering. In the
meantime, purveyors of non-free software would be able to effect the
same restrictions (and more) via contracts, which allow much more
expansive restrictions compared to copyrights.
>
> >
> > Without copyright, our movement would die. It's not
> secret
> > that current
> > copyright law is downright orwellian, but we still
> need
> > something to
> > keep things free.
> >
> > With no copyright, all software would be free or at least
> would be
> > reverse engineerable.
>
>
> We wouldn't have source, and reverse engineering is not an
> equal to
> that. ReactOS is a good example.
>
> No it is not. Once software is free under a free license, whoever got
> it alwas¡ys will have that part as free software. Whoever got it as
> nonfree without copyright would be able to at least execute and
> reverse engineer. Much better than before.....don't you think.
>
Now. But all of those free licenses would lose all power in a "world
without copyright". Whoever gets it as free software will be free, but
we'd lose the very effective tool of copyleft. What would you rather
have, the right to reverse-engineer things, or the GPL?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Quiliro Ordóñez, 2009/01/12
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Karl Goetz, 2009/01/12
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Quiliro Ordóñez, 2009/01/12
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Quiliro Ordóñez, 2009/01/12
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Ted Smith, 2009/01/12
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Quiliro Ordóñez, 2009/01/12
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Eus, 2009/01/13
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Quiliro Ordóñez, 2009/01/13
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Tor at Shared Genius, 2009/01/13
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Quiliro Ordóñez, 2009/01/13
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd],
Ted Smith <=
- Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd], Matthew Flaschen, 2009/01/14