Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:18:08 +0100 From: paul@originative.co.uk To: adam@whizkidtech.net, davids@webmaster.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: GPL alternatives Message-ID: <A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FF5B@octopus>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: G. Adam Stanislav [mailto:adam@whizkidtech.net] > Sent: 21 May 1999 05:31 > To: David Schwartz > Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: GPL alternatives > > > On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:35:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > >> The copyright law does give the author the right to give up all > >> his rights. > >> Many an author has to ask his publisher for the permission > to have his own > >> work published somewhere else. > > > > Yes, but he would have to give them to someone else, by > contract. > > Or release them by a formal statement. If you state in your > code: "This code > is in public domain" and do not understand the exact legal meaning of > "public domain" you may be up for some surprises. > > If you state in your license that it is meant to prevent > "anyone" from doing > certain things (as it does in GPL), you too may be up for a > surprise. Anyone > includes yourself. That statement is not as legally obvious > as the public > domain one, but I bet that is deliberate. If it were too > obvious, people would > think twice about using GPL. This just isn't the way copyright works, you're confusing the issue of copyright and licensing. If I create something then I own the Copyright. That can't be changed in any way regardless of what license I release the work under. Also, the license only applies to that particular "release" of the work, I'm free to give the work to some other body under a different license. There is also the situation where you sign over the copyright. This is a very different thing which transfers ownership of your work. Most publishers require authors to sign over the copyright to them which is why the author requires the publishers permission to publish elsewhere. It's also written into most softare developers contracts (it's implicit if you're an employee) that any work you do belongs to the body paying for it. You can sign over the copyright to the FSF but ut is not required in order to use the GPL and use of the GPL does not imply that you have. Any talk about the GPL transferring ownership of the work is total FUD and there are prominent examples of work licensed under the GPL in parallel with other licenses, Ghostscript and Perl just off the top of my head. The GPL actually has a clause which says "it is not the intention of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you" > > >> The wording of the GPL does allow for the possible > interpretation that the > >> author has given up all his rights to his work. Indeed, it > could be argued > >> that the author has transfered all his rights to FSF. It could > >> also be argued > >> that he did not. But who wants to spend time in court > arguing when you can > >> use clear wording, such as offered by the artistic license. > > > > I see no indiciation that the FSF is a party to the > GPL, assuming one > > simply places ones work under it. I could definitely see the other > > interpretation if one assignes ones code to the FSF. > > Yes, GPL is very carefully worded to leave out gray area > where it is to FSF > advantage, while using clear language where that is to their > advantage. > Remember, this whole discussion started when Jordan said he > respected Stallman > for his intelligence and I replied he should not. Now you see > what I was talking > about. :-) There's no hidden clause in the GPL that hands over ownership to the FSF, you're just being paranoid. > >> When I write free software, I want it to be free for anyone to > >> *use*, not for > >> anyone to *sell*. I might allow them to sell it, but in that case > >> I want to > >> see some of that money. > > > > When I write free software, I want it to be free for > anybody to use or > > sell. I want it to increase the quality and decrease the > cost of software. > > And that's fine. We do not need to have the same goals. In > either case, GPL is > not for us. :-) > > > If I wanted to see some money, I wouldn't write free software. > > Yes, I know what you mean. I do not do it for money either. > The only difference > between us is you do not mind if someone sells your software > while I do. If you don't want people selling your software then you need to release it under a much more restrictive license than either the GPL or BSD license. There is nothing in the BSD license that prevents me from taking your work and selling it for money. All it prevents me from doing is claiming that I wrote it. It has the most minimal restrictions that it's possible to put on a license i.e. it retains copyright by the author but allows total freedom of use by anyone for any purpose, inclusive of selling it as a rebadged product for lots of money. There's no requirement that I provide value-add, I can just sell your product for my own personal gain. If you don't like that then the BSD license isn't for you. Paul Richards To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FF5B>