Re: [gNewSense-users] patents and copyright [was: live cd]

[Ted Smith]

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