Re: Linux and GPLv2#
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:31:27AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, there isn't. It's very simple. You called it a "perversion",
> which means you think it's worse. I asked why you think it's a
> perversion. (In other words, "what is your perspective that makes
> you consider is worse?") You won't answer.
This seems to imply that there's some single perspective which can be
easily described to clarify this issue.
Personally, while I wouldn't describe things using the terms Andrew has,
I think I see something similar to his point.
For example, one perspective is: computer programs, in the general case,
shouldn't be regulated by copyright law.
Note that this particular flavor of perspective is not claiming that
computer programs should not be regulated (though it does fit with that
kind of argument). It could just as easily be a part of an argument for
other kinds of regulations (perhaps far more restrictive than anything
we've seen to date).
That said, it's probably worth noting that until the mid-1970s, computer
programs were thought to be not copyrightable. And, because of the
economics of the time this wasn't a big deal for a lot of people.
I think one of the reasons IBM has taken to open sourced software so
well is that their business model was developed under those conditions
-- they actually started losing ground, financially, when they switched
to an ultra-restrictive license model. [But they were in some sense
forced to do so, because if something isn't copyright protected it can be
incorporated in something which is copyright protected by someone else,
which has unpleasant business connotations.]
Anyways, the original quip should probably just be taken as a statement
that Andrew is dissatisfied with the system of copyright laws. We don't
have to turn this into some kind of forum for discussing potential
alternative systems.
--
Raul
Reply to: