Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release >> > something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization >> > with IP market economy. >> >> So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional. > > Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting > society.
Sure, and so does war. That does not mean that it is a good idea to create circumstances where this is the case. > And I certainly don't see any problems with availability of sources > to study code and conveniently exercise right to modify/adapt under > 17 USC 117. It doesn't need a license, it works with all rights > reserved. Uh, the source does not get available by magic. It needs to be explicitly provided before you can study and modify it. > EPL/CPL is also fine (binaries need not be royalty free) as long as > one needs binaries in order to execute. Another factor being that it > is clear legalese and not moronic Stallmanese (which is only good > for your crackpot theories regarding "whole combined works" being > derivative works). Look, the GPL explicitly states that the scope of derivative works is defined by copyright law. If you want to call copyright law a "crackpot theory", you are free to do so, but that puts you actually beyond Stallman with regard to radicality. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
