AS>> The same copyright system that disallows you to copy ripped MP3s
AS>> disallows companies to make proprietary products out of GPLed
AS>> software. Our copyright system is just fine.
With our GPLed software the matter is pretty complicated. Generally, GPLed
software is referred to as a "free software". But, in fact, it's not free
at all, in the common meaning of the word "freedom". You cannot use it in
any project whose views on software licensing is not the same as RMS's.
And "use" here includes interoperability, by RMS views, i.e. linking with,
etc. See RMSs commentaries on readline library. Some commercial companies
explicitly prohibit their workers even to touch GPLed software or enter it
into the campuses. Not because they hate free software so much - but
because current copyright system can make all their code "derived work"
just because some of the developers took a look into GPLed code. That's
not exactly how I understand "freedom". Recently, I start to think that if
people would know and think a bit more on RMSs interpretation of GPL
(which is pretty much of "you cannot touch it unless you are with us in
GPL") this license probably won't get so popular. GPL became yet another
modern myth.
Also, this copyright business got really out of proportion. I cannot just
take some "free" software and use it, I need to check license and all
legalese and get almost a degree in law to understand what's written
there. And I saw a number of times that people had to reimvent the wheel
and reimplement existing "free" code just because it was GPLed. I'm not
talking here about commercial software, I'm talking here about open source
project that happen to disagree with RMS on how to license their own
program products. Is it really useful for anyone? I doubt it.
AS>> I get the impression that some people don't want to pay for music they
AS>> listen to, so they start bashing the copyright law which makes that
AS>> illegal. I'm all for Napster and I'm myself a heavy user of it. I'm
Don't you feel hypocritical writing it? Liking both Napster and RIAA looks
contradictory to me. A clear case of doublethink, so common among us.
AS>> using it to download music, and then buy it if I like it and throw it
AS>> away if I don't. That's still illegal, but it has nothing to do with
AS>> the copyright law -- it has a lot to do with the fact that RIAA hasn't
It pretty much does. Copyright law allows copyright holder to control
distribution. Napster music distribution is not authorized by copyright
holder - i.e., by the current copyright law it is illegal.
AS>> yet properly embraced the Internet as an advertising medium. So leave
AS>> the copyright law alone. You can bash RIAA if you have to. ;-)
RIAA is within it's right when it uses current law. I agree that it might
be immoral and/or unwise to use the outdated law to protect their
outdated business model, but they are inside the "just fine" law and using
it and only it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken
Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells
phone +972-3-9316425 /\ JRRT LotR.
http://sharat.co.il/frodo/ whois:!SM8333
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
