[Gllug] Priracy.

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:55, Christian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, David Damerell wrote:
> 
> >On , 4 Mar 2003, John Hearns wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 17:36, David Damerell wrote:
> >>>You can believe what you like, but if you want your beliefs to relate
> >>>to reality you should examine;
> >>Can we please agree to disagree?
> >
> >About what RMS says? No. That's a matter of plain fact which you may
> >confirm for yourself.
> 
> Given your argument, RMS should have no problem with me copying GNU
> software and not respecting the GPL? GNU software is copyright, and can
> only be distributed with restrictions imposed by the copyright owner. To
> ignore those restrictions (the GPL in this case) would not go down well
> with RMS at all.

Hmmmm. I suspect RMS would have no problem with your copying GPL'ed
software, and making a proprietary product out of it, assuming you had
no problem with his taking your proprietary product, decompiling it, and
publishing reverse engineered source and binaries for free download.

Also, the GPL does not restrict redistribution - copyright law does
that. The GPL, to an extent, lifts that restriction.

RMS dislikes the rules of the game. However, those rules are forced on
him, so he uses them to his advantage. To draw a parallel, this is the
difference between self-defence and pacifism. Is is, in my view, not
hypocritical to hold a position of opposition to violence, while still
being prepared to use violence in self defence. Were the copyright
framework to change in such a manner that the GPL was no longer needed,
I'm sure RMS would have no problem with its disappearance. Until that
happens, I'm sure he'll defend it. However, reading into this defence of
the GPL a tacit approval of current copyright law is missing the point
entirely.

Mike.




-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug