Re: what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> >If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
> >as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
> >with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
> >distribute copies of it without your permission.
> Feel free to feel bound and to limit your own freedom if you so choose.
> It's a self-imposed limitation in the case of my example of
> non-licensed, non-attributed code that I typed into the mailing list.
> >Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
> >distributed without permission of the copyright owner.
> If you feel you need to follow that law in every circumstance, go right
> ahead. Breaking copyright in the case of someone releasing something
> without a license appears to be a victim-less crime.
> Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
> exercise it.
Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
tarnishing of a reputation.
> By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
> your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.
> I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
> everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
> be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.
You obviously don't agree with automatic copyright. However, to change
it you would have to change international law.
If you have the energy and effectivness to pull that off, I'd rather you
spend your talents on climate change.