"Jeremy (mailing list box)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
> Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
>> And the GPL gives him that right, but it also demands something in
>> return — that he publish the source to his patch.
>
> Basically what it demands is that the author surrender the ability to
> choose how his/her work should be licensed and released.
Sure.
When you decide you don't want to start your own business and decide to
look for a job, you're making the same decision. Surrendering your work
to be used by your employer however they see fit in exchange for a
paycheck.
It is a rational exchange.
The GPL is the same way: I want to build on some software and
contribute to its success. And I'm not that concerned about having
complete control over the result of my work — especially since I know
that copyright's legal framework will preserve my access to the work.
Another rational exchange.
> Seriously, living in America, I'm surprised that I'm the only one that
> sees that as unequivocally wrong.
Perhaps the rest of us don't think that America is an Ayn Rand novel.
> Any law that permits someone to license their software in such a way
> that you can compel another person to do something with work that they
> have done, even if they don't want to, is flat out wrong.
Wow, I can't help but read that as:
Any law that allows someone to control how their work is used and
dictate the terms under which others can use their work is flat out
wrong.
And then I think to myself “Do we live in the same America?”
Mark.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST