Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them
> (or so I thought). If you want your work used in a different manner
> then just say so. After all, it's your work. Of all the people in the
> world, you should have the largest say regarding how your work is used.
Presumably authors who choose to distribute their works under the GPL
find it represents their wishes. The GPL does not restrict the author's
use of his own writing (or rather, the copyright holder's use of it, which
may not be the same entity).
> Judged by Stallman's own actions, his GPL cannot possibly be designed to
> protect the wishes of the author. So what does the GPL stand for? My
> guess is that it is designed to guarantee that authors are forced to use
> their work in a specific manner. Even if the GPL proper isn't designed
> for this, it seems clear from his statements, that he would be very
> happy if all authors were forced to subscribe to his philosophy.
Actually, currently all users/readers are forced to subscribe to
copyright law, not vice versa. Abolishing copyright law wouldn't force
the authors into anything, other than returning to a more natural state of
affairs (at least in the US). It's not like Stallman is in favor of
forcing them to publish their writings.