copyright discussion

sambc at sambc at
Tue Sep 11 11:10:55 UTC 2001

>I did not read Praveen's post as any sort of attack upon us. But rather it 
>was in response to a common attitude among many in this community that 
>copyright is evil. If it is truly evil, then let's refuse to even consider 
>using its powers, by placing all of our software 

I wonder if perhaps it were posted due to miscontruing my post? I was not denegrating copyright, merely trying to illustrate what pwers it doesn't have, by mentioning examples just on either side of the thin line.

Most open source licences are not shrink-wrap, and do not rely upon the, to me somewhat spurious, concept that I don't own my copy of windows and therefore have no integral right to use it. This applies to almost all commercial software. Open-source licenses (notably the GPL) mostly rely upon implicit acceptance by exercising rights which they cannot get from anywhere else (generally) - if they do not exercise these rights the GPL does not come into it. If they do, they must abide by the conditions.

End pointless summary and clarification of previous points.

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list