> Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not > about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If > you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy. > Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less control. More > control, less freedom. Get it?
When philosophy and law collide, the enforcable law always dominates.
The Copyright Act is limited in scope (by judicial interpretation) to transferring "copies" in contractual privity by the copyright owner and those receiving the copies -- (the contracting parties).
Any enforceable term allowed by contract law, including use restrictions that are not and attempt to regulate copyright law outside of privity may be placed on the copyrighted material by the owner of the copyright.
Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of "free as in 'freedom' software".
I am attracted to the philosophical principle of free software and "copyleft", unfortunately that kind of licensing is not possible under current law.
Even worse is the fact that the exponentially growing pool of software utility patents and their attendant "field of use" restrictions without any requirement of contractual privity are rapidly rendering software copyright license discussions irrelevant to developements in Information Technology.
Daniel Wallace
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
