Re: Another vote for the death of copyright

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > An almost lyrical, if confusing, suggestion that the foundation of
> > copyright is inapplicable to software:
> >
> > http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_8/moglen/index.html
>
> While the article is very interesting to read, the term "free" in
> the article is used in an Orwellian way. None of the products as
> described in the article is free as in the sense of freedom.
> All of them are still owned by someone or an entity. In case of
> GNU, it is owned by Free Software Foundation. In case of music,
> they are still owned by the creators. But, what set them apart
> from other copyrighted works is that they are more open than the
> most of the copyrighted works. Open is not the same as free. In
> order for an item to be free, it has to be ownerless, just like a
> slave is freed when he or she is no longer owned by his master.
>
> In other words, the expression "Death of Copyright" in the title
> only gets your attention and is not supported by the article.

Speaking of the FSF and not the article[1], while your description of GNU software ownership is accurate, your conclusion needn't follow. The FSF uses copyright, and does own the works it releases. The long-term goal of FSF as I understand it is to have software copyright done away with.

There is literature at the FSF's website which compares the GNU General Public License with other forms of free software, including public domain ("truly" free). Understanding the reasons FSF doesn't use PD (it has limitations in a world which allows SW copyright), and the FSF's definition of freedom, is essential to understanding both ends and current means.

"Death of Copyright" is IMO pretty close to the FSF's ultimate goals. It's just not currently practical, in their estimation.

[1] As previously noted, Moglen provides legal counsel to FSF. His views may not be those of FSF, but they're in general alignment.

-- 
Karsten M. Self (kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com)
    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SAS for Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html
Mailing List:  body "subscribe sas-linux"
mailto:majordomo[_at_]Cranfield.ac.uk