On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients > > > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless > > > otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simple "Copyright (C) 2000 > > > Steve Langasek" would be free. > > The difference between this and the prior example is that in the > > first case, the *government* has additional rights over the > > software, whereas in the second case, it is the *author* who has > > lesser rights over (control of) the software. Yes, in this > > hypothetical jurisdiction, a mere copyright statement would be free; > > but we are concerned about freedom at the international level, so we > > need to take a "least common denominator" look at the rights of > > copyright holders. > So if the lowest common denominator (i.e. the law in all countries) > became > "If you distribute something under the GPL, you must give the > government a copy" > would the GPL be free? As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I think we would no longer be able to distribute such software; but I don't think it would render the GPL non-free, again because this is not a function of whether the license is granting us the necessary rights. Actually, let me amend that -- if someone released code under the GPL with the *intention* that people would have to the government, that would be non-free; but a change in the laws would not make pre-existing GPL code non-free. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature