Re: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
> another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
> important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
> publication or the Affero bit are onerous.
> Free software should create a sort of economy in which things are the
> way they would be if there were no copyrights at all. That's the
> One thing remains: the requirement of the GPL that source be
> transmitted. In a no-copyright world, you would not have to give
> source, so why am I happy with this requirement? Precisely because
> the important rights are the right to copy *and* the right to modify,
> and the distribution of the source preserves everyone's right to
> modify. This is a wrinkle built in to the nature of software.
Actually, the GPL goes beyond this, because of sections 6, and 7. In a
world without copyright, there would be no limitation on other
restrictions (such as contractual) being placed on distribution.
Effectively, these sections prevent non-copyright restrictions from
being placed on the code.
But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
without copyright law.
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson