16 Nov
2011
16 Nov
'11
9:29 a.m.
On 11/16/2011 07:15 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
This is why I see any licenses that limit distribution
and usage of
creative work as undesirable and unfounded. Even things like GPL and CC
seem to me like just lesser evil, as it still assumes that the author of
the work can be considered an owner of his ideas and thus assumes that
ideas can be property. This raises many-many problems, one of which is
giving the author too much power over society.
You may not like such licenses, even if I suspect you benefit from them
quite much, but to call them unfounded is, and this is the nicest way to
call it, ignorant. Especially the GPL has clear objectives and the
widespread use is indicative of the need.
Being based on Copyright, licenses like the GPL do not protect ideas,
but at most specific implementations of ideas.
If a programmer makes his source code available, that is a gift to
"society". Doing so with restrictions attached can be seen to make the
act less generous, but it is still on the giving side. It still is
enabling, not limiting. To then talk about "power over society" is
ridiculous. Don't like the conditions? Don't take it, no force applied,
nothing taken from you!
I see the GPL and similar licenses as a legal means of asking (and
potentially forcing) people to play fair. If you build on top of someone
else's source code, it's only fair to make the modifications available
in the same manner. Give like you have received, an example of the
golden rule.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/