Copyright

[Brendan Hide]

Urm... I forgot to CC this to the list.

I think I see your point. The real problem comes in when the original 
copyright owner does not participate in development. If I create A, and 
somebody else uses it to create B, I can use B to make A better. If my A 
is the first to be used by the community, then they probably won't be 
bothered with B because its just a clone. If somehow, I am no longer 
able to support and develop A, B will take over, in a marketing sense. 
This is part of the reason why the "distribution wars" are so tough.

Conjecture: Because you've effectively "abandoned" any current 
development on the software you've written you lose ownership of the 
original copyright.

Is this the "fear" (used rather loosely) you're highlighting?

The only case where this particular argument can be held is when the 
original author does abandon the software. If this happens, should the 
author care? In reality, I'd rather put my software into public domain 
than abandon it.

IANAL. If the above statements are way off the mark, even though I think 
they're spot-on, tell me.

Ken Brown wrote:

>Brendan,
>
>Its tough to debate this, particularly because a court has not ruled on any
>of this ever, so much of the "discussion" is conjecture.  John Cowan et. al
>are trying to sell you that if you or any other software developer
>distribute your work under the terms of the GPL, you will be able to take a
>user to court for distributing or modifying your work in a manner that you
>disagree with.
>
>What I like about the opensource.org group is that it empowers developers to
>customize their own licenses to how they see fit.  The GPL is only one of
>over 30+ variations of os agreements.  The FSF has bullied a couple of
>developers, but hasn't had a judge rule in their favor yet.  When they win
>in a court of law, I'll open my mind to their sales pitch a little more.
>
>Without the restrictions of a license that insists on strict enforcement of
>your copyright, you might or might not get credit, and you will definitely
>lose traditional rights of a copyright; that right includes controlling how
>others profit from, change and distribute your work.  This is inherently
>part of the commons model.
>
>>From my research, agreeing to GPL your work does not technically revoke your
>ownership of the playground, but it does revoke almost all of the rights and
>privileges that come with ownership-so what is the difference?  I cannot
>control what anybody does with my work, besides assert credit, that is not a
>copyright.  Just ask any writer, artist, singer, or poet.   Speaking
>specifically to the playground analogy, I guess it assumes that the children
>signed some sort of a "user agreement".  If the user agreement read like the
>GPL, then I guess you wouldn't care what they did to the playground.  But on
>the other hand, if the user agreement read like the GPL, you couldn't stop
>them either.
>
>kb
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brendan Hide [mailto:brendan at sacm.co.za]
>Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:06 AM
>To: Ken Brown; license-discuss at opensource.org
>Subject: Re: Copyright
>
>Ken Brown wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Ex:  I own a piece of property...but at anytime, anybody in the General
>>Public can use it, dig it up, change it, etc.  How can you say I have
>>ownership of the property?
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>I know you've already given up - but just answer the questions below.
>
>If I build a jungle-gym in my front yard and tell the neighbourhood that
>their children can all use it - whose is it? If I also say that the
>parents can make additions to it to make it safer or more "exciting" -
>who is the owner after they've made these changes?
>
>--
>Brendan Hide
>brendan at sacm.co.za
>Technical Writer
>
>SA Computer Magazine
>http://www.sacm.co.za/
>+27 21 715 7134
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Opinions expressed in this Email are those of the individual sending
>it and not necessarily of the Company. This Email is confidential.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--
>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
>
>--
>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Brendan Hide
brendan at sacm.co.za
Technical Writer

SA Computer Magazine
http://www.sacm.co.za/
+27 21 715 7134

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed in this Email are those of the individual sending
it and not necessarily of the Company. This Email is confidential.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3