home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4294 talk.philosophy.misc:3204 misc.legal:22166
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck
- From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Date: 8 Jan 1993 02:03:29 GMT
- Organization: U. C. Berkeley
- Lines: 66
- Message-ID: <1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu>
- References: <1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu> <MIB.93Jan7152945@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu
-
- In article <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
- >In article <MIB.93Jan7152945@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- >mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
- >
- >>In article <1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu>
- >>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
- >
- >MZ:
- >>>You haven't read the GPL. The FSF legally owns all code licensed under
- >>>the GPL, under *any* reasonable definition of intellectual property.
- >
- >MIB:
- >>This is false, and it's important that people recognize it.
- >
- >This is known as an _exordium_, and it is important that people
- >realize that it does not constitute a refutation.
-
- Here's the reason for your confusion, Michael. You've read the part
- of the GPL that says
-
- Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
- and think that that is logically part of the GPL. If you read, on
- the other hand, the copyright on Ghostscript or some other program
- that has not been legally assigned to the FSF, you'll see that there
- is nothing in the text assigning ownership to FSF.
-
- The rest of your argument falls apart because you seem to be under
- the impression that I slap the GPL onto my work, I have taken rights
- away from myself. I have not. As the owner of the work, I can make
- another copy with a different copyright agreement attached.
-
- >Surely you must be joking. If the GPL only applies to *that* particular
- >copy, what is there to prevent me, a bemused bystander, from making a
- >duplicate and releasing it on my own terms, against the ostensible
- >provisions of the selfsame GPL? In my circles, this is known as a
- >_reductio ad absurdum_.
-
- It is your argument that is absurd, not Michael's. The distinction
- is that the bemused bystander is not the owner of the work. The
- *owner* may make copies under whatever condition he or she pleases.
- Perhaps you are confused because you seem to think that GPL'ing a
- work assigns ownership to the FSF. This is not true; the FSF encourages
- programmers to assign ownership of programs to them, but not all GPL'ed
- programs have their ownership so assigned. You must execute a separate
- legal document to assign ownership of your work to the FSF.
-
- As a bystander, you may only make copies if the owner has granted
- you permission. If you have a copy with a copyright notice granting
- you permission, you may do so. If you do not, you may not.
-
- The rest of your argument arises from mistaken assumptions. Here's
- the deal. If it's my work, only I have the right to make copies.
- The reason the GPL can mandate copying conditions is because it is
- granting additional rights beyond the default rights: by default,
- you may not copy Gnu software at all. But the GPL grants you permission
- to make copies provided that certain rules are followed.
-
- The owner of a copyrighted work is free to produce two copies, one with
- the GPL and one without, precisely because he or she is the owner.
-
-
-
-
- --
- Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
-