Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/18/09, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> > I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
>> > owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different
>> > monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of
>> > a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense.
>> >
>> > IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is
>> > not founded in its inception nor its effects.
>>
>> As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does
>> explicitly state that copyright is property
>
> That is answering the question of what specific laws say in specific
> jurisdictions, which is not a question I raised.
>
> While it's true that the wording of copyright law in specific
> jurisdictions is where it actually matters, this sub-thread is about the
> correct *framing* of copyright.
>
> Which is why I'm arguing from the inception and effects of copyright, to
> point out that copyright wasn't conceived as property, nor is it
> sensible to see its effects in terms of property. So we should avoid the
> framing of copyright as *necessarily* a property right; that wasn't the
> case in the past, so we don't need to accept that it will remain so.
>
> Our framing should be in accordance with that.
I understand what you're saying - admittedly I'm not really keeping up
with this thread so I haven't really been thinking about the context,
but whenever we say that copyright shouldn't be treated as property,
the fact is the law says it's property. Although in response to the
original question about the term 'proprietary software', this being
debian-legal we all understand the FSF use of the term.
--
Andrew Donnellan <>< andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com
http://linux.org.au
Reply to: