[Lancaster] [Fwd: Re: Twitter]

[mp]

Richard Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:47:55PM +0000, mp wrote:
>> The GPL is precisely such a good example - not just for software -,
>> because it treats individuals and the collective in a novel manner: the
>> configuration between the individual and the collective is very
>> different under the GPL from what it is like under exclusive, private
>> property rights as they are known in the capitalist economy.
> 
> 
> I disagree. The GPL is based entirely on existing copyright law. It's an
> amusingly different take on what can be done with private property, but it
> depends entirely on the concept that a piece of software _is_ property, such
> that its owner gets to say what anyone else can do with it.

You say you disagree, but now how? I think we pretty much agree.

"based entirely on" is one way of putting it. It certainly rests on
copyright, as it is a set of subclauses to it. But the very point of the
GPL is that through the subclauses it reforms copyright, by essentially
reconfiguring the relations between the individual and the collective.
That is the subversive or transcendental character of the GPL. It is
more than amusing and as of yet remains unexplained conceptually in
mainstream, academic jurisprudence and legal theory.

Because it is recognised as a form of property in the first place does
not change the fact that with the GPL subclauses added to copyright, the
relations between creator/individual and society/collective are
reconfigured in a novel fashion.

m