John Souvestre wrote:
> 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 doesn't change the fact that it is a separate chunk of work
that required a separate person's time and effort. I'd argue that is a
major flaw in the copyright system.
> 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.
I've made such assertion. I've asserted that the copyright system is
broken, that patch writers should have the rights to code they wrote and
that the GPL exploits the current copyright system, a system that the
FSF supposedly claims they don't like.
> 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.
That's not what Mark said... And that isn't what their whole copyleft
schtick seems to indicate.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST