| Matthew Rosewarne on 26 Oct 2007 00:15:56 -0000 |
|
On Thursday 25 October 2007, Sean C. Sheridan wrote: > Many people may not understand that you may charge for your software and > still have it fall under the category of "free software". If, however, > you do not offer the sourcecode your software is not free. Futhermore the > foundation promotes copyleft, as opposed to copyright. It's not actually enough to provide your source code, since your copyrights still apply to it. What makes software Free is a license that explicitly grants (at least) the four kinds of freedom to whom you provide your work. It's also important to note that "copyleft" is just a playful term for using copyright in an unusual way, not an opposition to copyright. > "Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to > fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. > But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and > only draconian punishments can enforce it. The global corporations that > profit from copyright are lobbying for draconian punishments, and to > increase their copyright powers, while suppressing public access to > technology. But if we seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose > of copyright?to promote progress, for the benefit of the public?then we > must make changes in the other direction". I would say the key problem is that our legal foundation of the rights of individuals and organisations is antiquated, having been written mostly before the advent of the "modern" world. The Constitution of the USA grants us the right to private property, but never are the products of our minds mentioned. As such, when the advancements of the following 100 years made thoughts and ideas valuable trade items, the only way for them to be protected from unauthorised copying was to equate them to "private property". I think it's fairly obvious that thoughts aren't physical items that can be stolen or destroyed, so the protections given to owned property don't really fit. Therefore, what we would need to improve the situation would be a change in the legal basis of copyright, trademarks, patents, and other ideas towards a set of rights that is more appropriate to their nature. Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|