Dual licensing

[dlw]

 > Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user.  It's not
 > about control by the author (except in specific limited respects).  If
 > you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
 > Freedom is about giving up control.  More freedom, less control.  More
 > control, less freedom.  Get it?
 
 When philosophy and law collide, the enforcable law
 always dominates.

 The Copyright Act is limited in scope (by judicial
 interpretation) to transferring "copies" in contractual
 privity by the copyright owner and those receiving the
 copies -- (the contracting parties).
 
 Any enforceable term allowed by contract law, including
 use restrictions that are not and attempt to regulate
 copyright law outside of privity may be placed on the
 copyrighted material by the owner of the copyright.
 
 Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of
 contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the
 Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical
 underpinnings of "free as in 'freedom' software".
 
 I am attracted to the philosophical principle of free
 software and "copyleft", unfortunately that kind of
 licensing is not possible under current law.
 
 Even worse is the fact that the exponentially growing pool
 of software utility patents and their attendant "field of use"
 restrictions without any requirement of contractual privity
 are rapidly rendering software copyright license discussions
 irrelevant to developements in Information Technology.
 
 Daniel Wallace


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