On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +0000, max wrote: > This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially tries > to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives rights not to > the creator of some code, but to the code itself.
Can you please show me where in the GPL it gives rights to the code itself? Because, frankly, I think you are mistaken. Of course, I might be wrong in this instance, and I always welcome corrections. > For me, the fact > that corporations are considered people by the law is ridiculous. Ridiculous? I don't think so. Take, for example, Acme Inc. Acme purchases a new factory. Who owns the factory? The CEO? The Chairperson of the Board of Directors? Split in equal shares between all the directors? Split between all the thousands of shareholders? Society has to decide between these methods. (Of course, society can choose to hedge its bets by creating multiple entities that use different rules, such as partnerships, trusts, public corporations, limited corporations, etc.) None of these alternatives are *wrong*, but they all have various disadvantages. The legal fiction that corporations are legally persons is a work-around for these disadvantages, and it works quite well in many circumstances. To call it ridiculous is, well, ridiculous. Ownership is a legal fiction in any case, so it is no more ridiculous to say that a collective entity such as a corporation owns property than it is to say that an individual being owns property. However, if you wanted to argue that giving corporations all the privileges of legal personhood with none of the responsibilities caused more harm than good, I would agree with you. I take it you've seen "The Corporation"? > Using a license that ends up doing the same thing with code leaves a > bad taste in my mouth. Of course you are free to use some other licence. But without evidence, I do not accept that the GPL attempts to give rights to code. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
