[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] computers and networks 101
- To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] computers and networks 101
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <OF33D85295.4909169F-ON88256AEF.005537A9@aero.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> But Microsoft has a right to sell software just at much as GPL has to
> give it away.
To rephrase more correctly: Microsoft has a right to sell software as much
as the GPL grants the right to give it away.
I agree that a person or corporation has the right to sell copies of a
work. But I disagree with the idea that anyone has a right to tell
someone what they can do with that copy after first sale. If I want to
install it on eighty computers, fine. If I want to sell it again,
If the work is copyrighted, I don't have the right to sell further
copies. That's already established.
But I also disagree that a copyright can cover the binary distributions
being kicked out by commercial software vendors. Is the copyright on the
actual stream of bits distributed on the CD? If not, then they're not
really publishing the work. The stream of bits on the CD doesn't count as
publication because it's trivial for the software company to change a few
elements of the UI, recompile with a slightly modified compiler, and end
up with a completely unique binary stream and claim brand new copyright,
even though the underlying work has not changed significantly.
Copyright should apply only to source code (the PARTICULAR EXPRESSION of
the ideas present in a piece of software) and copyright protection should
only apply to published versions of the copyrighted material. That is to
say, if you don't publish source, you don't get copyright protection.
That means I can sell multiple copies of that binary distributed software
because there's no copyright law to prevent it.
> It's healthy competition. When you hear executives of Microsoft making
> public pronouncments that GPL is the worst thing for the software
> industry ever created, it's time to check for your wallet....
Well, the GPL _IS_ the worst thing for the software industry's current
business model (keep secrets, charge for using work derivative of the
secrets on a per-seat basis, let government enforce secret without any
Fine. So be it.
Jeme A Brelin