Re: Illustrating JVM bindings
> > Why assume that interoperability is the only benefit from release under
> > copyleft?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:45:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that the public benefit of
> interoperability, used in a number of the decisions that I've cited to
> justify permitting competitive use of an interface, is even stronger
> when the factual situation involves cooperative use.
Ok, but unless you take all benefits into account, you don't have a
coherent "the benefits are better" reason for changing the license.
> > For example, there's issues like "more eyes on the code", "easier to
> > make derived works", and "enabling literacy".
>
> All of which I agree with. The GPL is a good thing. I would like to
> see all of the code in the commons under the GPL. I would like to see
> lots more code gifted from commercial software vendors into that
> commons. I believe that the FSF's attitude on the GPL and linking
> boundaries is the biggest obstacle to these goals.
I'm dubious, at least for now.
> > And then there's the whole area of increasing the market for some related
> > product (for example: the hardware which runs the free code, or the
> > training services to help people use the free code more effectively, or
> > the consulting services to help businesses use the free code to improve
> > their processes, or ...).
>
> Yes, and I've made (part of) my living for the last decade or more, on
> and off, doing all of the above.
One of the BSD projects?
> None of these benefits go away when the closed-application/GPL-library
> scenario is also permitted.
It's pretty clear to me that the "easier to make derived works" does
tend to go away with BSD style licenses. I'm not convinced that a "GPL
modified to be more like BSD" license would not suffer the same class
of problem, over time.
It's very obviously the case that those closed-application licenses
do not offer GPL's public benefits.
> > For that matter, what makes you think that competitive use of the
> > interface is being disallowed? Near as I can tell, the only thing being
> > disallowed is use of the implementation and that's only being disallowed
> > in circumstances where the competing use won't comply with the copyright
> > on that implementation.
>
> Replace "won't comply with the copyright on that implementation" with
> "won't comply with the FSF's interpretation, poorly supported if at
> all by case law in any jurisdiction, of the power of the GPL to
> leverage the copyright monopoly to dictate the licensing terms of
> software that uses that implementation" and we agree.
I'm not convinced that your interpetation is correct.
Your reasoning is based on precedents which do not involve the copying
of any copyrighted material, and on rigidly mechanical logic for how
this relates to the applicability of the GPL's terms.
Copyright law is not that rigid, so I don't think your logic holds.
> > > You can argue that there's a completely different kind of public benefit
> > > that would result from giving free software a special status, but you're
> > > going to find limited legal precedent for that view.
> >
> > Why bring in "a special status" as an issue?
>
> Because that's what one is arguing for when one argues that a free
> software license ought to be able to reach across an interface
> boundary even if case law says that copyright itself can't.
I think you've totally misunderstood the concept of what a "derivative
work" is.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html
In other words, your assertion here is simply meaningless. "Interface
boundary" is a mechanical issue -- one of the facts relating to the
composition of the work -- which may or may not be relevant to whether
copyright applies in any specific case.
--
Raul
Reply to: