Hi Jeremy.
You make some good points but...
> The fix is its own body of work because it required the original
> screw up to be noticed, recognized and repaired.
If it requires the original, then by definition it is not its own body of work.
It is a derivative of the original work. Without the original work it wouldn't
exist.
> And that's what I'm saying... The owner of the patch code or an
> enhancement should retain control over that code. Simple concept.
Yes, and the copyright law allows this - if it is what the author wants. It
doesn't mandate it, however. You should honor the author's wishes or not use
his product.
You keep asserting that your patch makes the program better and this somehow
justifies your actions. Not so. Many patches cause failures. Indeed, this is
why some authors don't allow 3rd party patches to start with.
Violating the copyright then claiming that you have rights is illogical.
- - -
> Which would make sense if not for the fact that the FSF seems to take
> huge exceptions to the way copyright works.
I think that they like it just fine. It let them do what they wanted to do. It
seems that you are the one upset about it, not them.
- - -
> I just disagree with the coercive nature of the GPL and find it
> ironic that the GPL is equated with anything being "free" (as in
> freedom, not free beer).
1) There's nothing coercing you to use their product.
2) "Free" is not the same as "public domain".
Regards,
John
John Souvestre - Integrated Data Systems - (504) 355-0609
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST