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.""

Comments

What is the so different about software?

[evilviper]

The same law governing software is no different than that governing books. Everyone is in agreement that the restrictions on books are acceptable terms, so the question should be,

"Why are software licenses more restrictive than books?"

If it was just a matter of lawyers saying 'Hey, we can put some more restrictions in place' them why did it not propogate back to books? Is it there because it's easier to get people to agree to? Perhaps software licenses are a matter of enforcibility.

My point? People are not asking the right questions. As the right questions and the answers are right around the corner.

Re:What is the so different about software?

[arkanes]

Remember this phrase? "Near perfect digital copies". Those 3 words drive all the additional restrictions on software.

Re:GPL is defensive

[anothy]

first, you write "The only thing they can do is to spread FUD...", then you follow shortly on with this gem:

...all form of GPL-bashing or trying to put bad words in the mouth of the FSF people are to be looked at with a critical eye.

now who's spreading the FUD? you're advocating, basically, that people be discouraged from debating - and thus improving - the GPL. further, the FSF does take very clear positions on things, and it's often not necassary to put any words in their collective mouths to find something to take issue with. RMS has very strong ideas on the future of software licensing, and many people legitamatly take issue with them. your suggestion is harmful both to the public good and propriatary interests.

Never forget that the BSD and most other license are very weak at protecting our collective work

what? what on earth are you talking about? can you show a single case where a BSD license was found un-enforcable? in fact, BSD's gone to court, which i don't believe can be said for GPL (am i wrong?), and found explicitly enforcable. the BSD license places far fewer restrictions on the recipient of the license than the GPL does, and is thus likely to continue to be better enforceable. what GPL does - and BSD doesn't - is give you the right to see other people's work who used yours; BSD protects yours just fine. and enforcing restrictions on other people's works certainly seems somewhat less fundamental than putting protections on your own.

Under BSD, any company could take our code, slightly change a protocol, patent it and sue the original authors

this is bullshit, pure FUD, and it makes me very angry. in the case you describe, the patent would likely not be awarded, due to the existance of prior art. should it be awarded, it would be overturned if it ever went to court, for the same reason. what you're doing here is dishonest and vicious. you're playing on the fact that the BSD license - unlike the GPL - implicitly preserves the right for the licensee to release propriatary modifications. but, again, BSD still protects the original work (and has for longer, under better testing, than GPL). whether or not to allow propriatary derivative works is something a software author must decide. there are valid arguments on either side, but to reduce the complex issue to the ignorant statement above is just plain wrong.