Slashdot Mirror
GNU GPL law and "lagom" copyright
Johannes writes "Newsforge column on "lagom" copyright. I think we need to discuss these issues more. Maybe a GNU GPL law isn't so bad after all. As Pawlo states: "Would not a modern democratic society benefit from a plurality of irreconcilable and incompatible doctrines? We need the GNU GPL, but we also need proprietary software, Open Source software, BSD licenses, the Apache license and so forth. That would make the case for GNU GPL legislation void. However, as Lawrence Lessig taught us in his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, the code may in itself work against plurality.""
OK, you currently get life plus 70 years. That will allow your great-grandchildren to continue to profit from your work. Work which they had no part in, nor did their parents, nor their grandparents.
Can you explain why you don't think this is long enough?
If you really write the Great American Novel, but its genius is not recognized until 50 years after you're dead ... I say that should just be tough luck for your descendents.
I see no reason for any copyright to extend more than 30 years. If you are still relying financially on something you wrote 30 years ago ... get a day job already, you're a has-been, not a great artist.
As for your wife - if you were smart you saved and invested while you were making the big bucks for 30 years, so she should have plenty of inheritance anyway.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Never forget that the BSD and most other license are very weak at protecting our collective work in the current environment. Under BSD, any company could take our code, slightly change a protocol, patent it and sue the original authors,
That is simply not true. Unless their "slight change" introduces a new concept, there is nothing to patent. If it does introduce a new concept then it is the concept that is patented, not the particular software implementation that happens to build on BSD-based software. They could have patented the idea even without doing an implementation! The GPL is no protection against patents.
and even without patent it could sue for frivolous legal reasons or prevent any further work on the original source base.
The GPL is no protection against frivolous law suits either! I could sue you today for anything. GPL versus BSD has nothing to do with it.
It appears that there are a number of confusions in Pawlo's article that I
would like to clear up, if possible.
It is ultimately biased to discuss whether or not "someone wants to make
proprietary software illegal". Proprietary software is, as Pawlo's
article notes, based on copyright law. Copyright law is a construct
created by various legal systems throughout the world, and it makes
proprietary software possible.
Laws exist in Free societies for the good of the public. The question
that we raise in the Free Software Movement is: "When copyright law is
applied to software, does it have a negative or positive effect on
society?" And, "If that effect is negative, what changes must be made so
that the public is best served in the realm of software?"
These are hard questions to consider, and are by and large ignored in
today's Free Software debates. I theorize that they are ignored for two
reasons: (a) none of us in the Free Software community have the means to
change existing copyright law anyway and (b) we already have legal tools
that allow us to work for software freedom within the existing copyright
system. In a sense, we have a working solution to the problem.
The GNU GPL is a legal tool that works within the copyright system to
build a world with software freedom for all. However, the GNU GPL never
tries to do an end-run around existing copyright law, nor could it; it is
a copyright license. The GNU GPL is the interim solution that is designed
to give and defend freedom in a world where proprietary software exists
and is the norm.
In the future, perhaps our congresses, houses of parliament, and political
leaders will be ready to have the debate about how copyright for software
could be changed to truly serve society. The Free Software Movement
should be ready and poised to enter that debate when it begins. However,
we at the FSF by and large don't actively propose ideas of how software
copyright law could be changed to serve society better. It just seems
silly to play "what-if"---focusing on a message that our politicians
aren't ready nor willing to hear. So, we focus on battles we can likely
win: opposition of extending copyright law any further, and a repeal of
the DMCA and DCMA-like laws worldwide.
The Free Software Movement is unique among social movements; we currently
have the means to create the commons we want (i.e., hacking talent) and
the legal tools to defend that commons (i.e., the GNU GPL). I suggest
that we focus on building a better commons and defending the commons we
have, rather than arguing about what we would do if we suddenly became
president or prime minister.
I agree that "what-if" and self-satire are fun games to play at a cocktail
party. However, we have a serious and hard road ahead of us to win
software freedom for computer users. I hope that we can close this debate
that has dragged on and on in our community. I suggest that we focus on
what we need to do in the coming year to defend the software freedom we
have, and to give software freedom to more people who don't have it yet.