Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a reminder: I favor the use of the non-crack-smoking GPL on a much
> broader basis than it is used today. I would like to see all "open
> source" projects, FSF and otherwise, relicensed exclusively under the
> GPL so that we can roll up our sleeves and refactor the corpus without
> worrying about whose chocolate winds up in whose peanut butter. I
> believe that the FSF's bullshitting about copyright law is the main
> obstacle to that happening in today's software world.
I'm not convinced that the "crack smoking" argument is
relevant, or accurate.
So far, my impression of that argument is that it rests very
heavily on fine points of phrasing, but it also seems like
you apply it rather liberally to anyone who draws different
conclusions than you.
Your conclusions may or may not be correct -- ultimately,
if that's resolved at all, that will be resolved by a judge.
In the mean time... I don't really understand what points
you are trying to make -- even to know if and when I am
presenting something which is even relevant to an
argument you are presenting. As a result, I don't
understand what it is you're objecting to in the context
of the FSF.
It seems as if every time I've attempted to restate
what seems to be your fundamental point, I've found
out that I was incorrect. But, you are very emphatic
about how anyone who doesn't draw the same
conclusions as you -- be they courts, lawyers,
or even merely myself -- has some very derogatory
labels applied in those cases.
Now, granted, there might be some chance that
I and others are indeed smoking crack, even though
I myself am unaware of this practice. But that's
certainly not the only possibility.
There is even the chance that you are
incorrect about something or another (though,
what that could be seems rather unclear,
since I don't know how to test your assertions,
nor, in many cases, what they are supposed
to mean -- consider the "derivative and
collective works are disjoint" as a fairly
well discussed example).
> No, a license is an individual provision in a contract, whether
> explicit or implied.
Could you provide a citation on that? This seems to
conflict with the usages I'm familiar with, including
those in the urls you mentioned at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00621.html
You might be correct here about what license terms
are and are not, but even if you are I might be drawing
the wrong conclusion from your phrasing. I'd be
more comfortable if I had this from some official
source.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: