BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
rmf at lookhere.com
Sat Feb 16 15:20:38 CST 2002
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > No. If anything, it seems to be using licencing rules
> > to negate copyrights. It really wants to make a copyright
> > into "a right to copy it". Even taking what you say, if you
> > extend what is "fair" use, you obviously must be making it
> > less fair somewhere else....
> As I said, very simplified.
> What I meant is that the mechanism that forces release of
> the extension of the LGPL (read: copyleft) is similar to the
> case where fair use is extended so I take legally take
> the work instead.
while this is one *small* aspect of copyleft, the *GPL extends
well beyond that. "fair use" does not allow you to redistribute
work, nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively).
> The copyleft mechanism forces "push" of the source code
> which is better in the case of software.
> I by this wanted to illustrate that copyleft is not something
> inherantly "evil" as Brett Glass are apparently crusading against.
I'll let Brett speak for himself (not like I can stop him :) ), but
I didn't see an argument that 'copyleft' was bad. It was the *GPL is
bad. Just as rms think propriatary programs are evil, Brett and others
think that the loss of copyright protections are just as bad or worse.
I'm not quite as concerned as Brett, as I think the viral nature of the
*GPL will eventually be thrown out in US court.
More information about the wine-devel