[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> CLOSED derivative works.
> If it's copyright, it's proprietary.
> "proprietary" == "property". If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary.

Although the GNU project disagrees again with your viewpoint:

    Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers
    to the term “open source”. In the free software movement,
    we do not want to be confused with the open source camp,
    so we are careful to avoid saying things that would
    encourage people to lump us in with them. For instance,
    we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed”. We call
    it “nonfree” or “proprietary”.

    Proprietary software is software that is not free or
    semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is
    prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or
    is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely.

Of course, in this regard Stallman's well known viewpoint that "intellectual property" is a legal unjustifiable term as copyright, patent, and trademark law are not based in property rights at all, is counter to what I expect most lawyers would say.

(I say that if a dwarf planet like Pluto isn't a planet then it holds that intellectual property might also not be property. But I'm just a guy on a couch.)

In the context of debian-legal, especially where the term "copyleft" is used, I would have assumed that the default vocabulary is well aligned with that of GNU, and to be expected.


Reply to: