Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:16:52 +0530 (IST) From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003190139010.8919-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <200003181755.JAA18402@sharmas.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have been in this situation before with one of my previous > employers. When the Indian software firm A modifies GPL'ed code > and ships it off to company B, GPL triggers. You can have private > modifications to GPL, only if the code remains within a legal entity. It would trigger only if company B plans to redistribute. That is, Company A must give it to Company B under the GPL; but if it is for company B's private use, why would company B care about the restrictions on distributing? I've heard that Cygnus does exactly this with its custom modifications of gcc, though the generally useful bits are eventually released to the public too. > He would have been able to make money by selling add-ons to ghostscript. > Because he licensed it under GPL, he could only sell mods to his code. > Had he licensed it under BSD, he'd be able to sell mods to an enhanced > version of ghostscript. He has the copyright, and can sell ghostscript under a different license (with add-ons and all) anyway. But only he, the copyright holder, could do that. (Though actually I think he didn't insist on retaining all copyrights for modifications, but trusted to the goodwill of the community.) On the other hand, with the BSD license, anyone else could have made money selling addons: having written the code, he had no competitive advantage except familiarity with his code. With the GPL, only he has that advantage. It is clear that he didn't like the idea of others making money from his code, which is why > > music/creative writing/etc, Stallman himself agrees that a GPL-style > > copyleft would not be a good idea. > > Do you have a reference to Stallman's statement on music etc ? Given > the current controversy surrounding DVDs/MP3s/Free documentation license/ > Free content license etc, I find it a little bit surprising. About the free doc licence, it contains some stuff about "invariant sections" which cannot be modified; the GPL contains no such provision. RMS says in his article on free documentation (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html) As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.... In other articles he gives several suggestions on how to compensate artists, which may not be very realistic. But he does make the important point that people don't copy unless they have an incentive, in that it's Today copyrights are controlled by big business. (Look at the Disney company, for example, lobbying to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse almost indefinitely.) Copyrights are meant to encourage creativity by supporting the creative artists, and it's hard to see how a long dead Walt Disney's creativity is going to improve by this. As for music, CDs retail for $10-$20, though the production cost is less than $1; of the rest, barely a few percent goes to the artist. The rest goes to the big corporations and retailers. Who benefits from such policies? Not the consumers, and to a large extent not the "creative artists" either. Something has to change. Stallman may not have the answers, but at least it's nice to have someone remind us of the questions. Also check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html -- one of the most alarming stories I've read, but I've realised its significance only recently with abominations like country-coded DVD's and the DMCA gaining wide acceptance. 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?Pine.BSF.4.20.0003190139010.8919-100000>