[T]he Supreme Court ruled that a mere collection of facts can't be
copyrighted.
Would the Linux people, then, be able to assert
that their C code is merely programmable facts which generates certain
(MD5|MD4|SHA1|etc) hashes? Chew on that one, SCO.
This would not be a good thing at all. GPL require copyright. This would open linux up to being incorperated into closed source derived work without distributing the linux source.
No, it would be a good thing. It has always been the position of the FSF that software hoarding is unethical, and that software copyright should be abolished. The GPL is a mid-term tool used to prevent people from restricting the use (/modification/distribution) of GPL'd software.
From the contents of your post, I see you are aware that if we were to just release software into the public domain, modifications could then legally become propietary. So instead we it release under the GPL which prevents that from happening. But if there was no legal basis for restricting software - if all software was pubic domain, then there would be no need for the GPL. Copyleft is only necisarry because of the existence of copyright.
But if there was no legal basis for restricting software - if all software was pubic domain, then there would be no need for the GPL. Copyleft is only necisarry because of the existence of copyright.
However, you would have no way of getting access to the source code if a company didn't release it. You couldn't get it even if 90% of it was PD software + their changes.
Sure copy the binary to your heart's content, but you pay for the upgrade, or the annual key for the binary licencing system (which as i
From the contents of your post, I see you are aware that if we were to just release software into the public domain, modifications could then legally become propietary. So instead we it release under the GPL which prevents that from happening. But if there was no legal basis for restricting software - if all software was pubic domain, then there would be no need for the GPL. Copyleft is only necisarry because of the existence of copyright.
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
Essentially, we would live in a world where the highest paid engineers were those who know how to obfuscate well. "Free" software wouldn't gain anything, and indeed may be eclipsed by closed source versions of software which have proprietary modifications to make them more attractive. Unlike todays situation where closed source companies cannot make effective business use of GPLd (or similar) code, we would enter into an era of unparalleled code theft and plagiarism. Legal, of course.
What I think the FSF wants to get to, is a point where copyright *does not apply* to software, and in addition, it becomes a legal requirement to distribute copies of source code with all software.
In return for the legal protection of copyright, developers should have to distribute their source code - this I do not argue with at all - but copyright (or copyleft) itself will still be required to keep free software free.
Note, that I am primarily a closed source user, but would prefer copyrighted software with mandated source code distribution.
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
Sure, that's the point.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
What is the negative effect of someone taking free software, modifying it, and selling it under copyright (with or without publishing the source code)?
I recognize the gut instinct that it would be "unfair" for one to gain on the effort of another. But economics dictate that the modifier would only be able to sell the product for the value they add over the free product. A component of that value may simply be packaging, promotion and documentation - which does reduce the search costs of
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Who owns the facts? (Score:4, Interesting)
[T]he Supreme Court ruled that a mere collection of facts can't be copyrighted.
Would the Linux people, then, be able to assert that their C code is merely programmable facts which generates certain (MD5|MD4|SHA1|etc) hashes? Chew on that one, SCO.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the contents of your post, I see you are aware that if we were to just release software into the public domain, modifications could then legally become propietary. So instead we it release under the GPL which prevents that from happening. But if there was no legal basis for restricting software - if all software was pubic domain, then there would be no need for the GPL. Copyleft is only necisarry because of the existence of copyright.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, you would have no way of getting access to the source code if a company didn't release it. You couldn't get it even if 90% of it was PD software + their changes.
Sure copy the binary to your heart's content, but you pay for the upgrade, or the annual key for the binary licencing system (which as i
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:2)
I think having no copyrights would be more beneficial than GPL.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
Essentially, we would live in a world where the highest paid engineers were those who know how to obfuscate well. "Free" software wouldn't gain anything, and indeed may be eclipsed by closed source versions of software which have proprietary modifications to make them more attractive. Unlike todays situation where closed source companies cannot make effective business use of GPLd (or similar) code, we would enter into an era of unparalleled code theft and plagiarism. Legal, of course.
What I think the FSF wants to get to, is a point where copyright *does not apply* to software, and in addition, it becomes a legal requirement to distribute copies of source code with all software.
In return for the legal protection of copyright, developers should have to distribute their source code - this I do not argue with at all - but copyright (or copyleft) itself will still be required to keep free software free.
Note, that I am primarily a closed source user, but would prefer copyrighted software with mandated source code distribution.
And I forgot to add.... (Score:2)
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:2)
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
Sure, that's the point.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
Sure, some would be distribute
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:1)
What is the negative effect of someone taking free software, modifying it, and selling it under copyright (with or without publishing the source code)?
I recognize the gut instinct that it would be "unfair" for one to gain on the effort of another. But economics dictate that the modifier would only be able to sell the product for the value they add over the free product. A component of that value may simply be packaging, promotion and documentation - which does reduce the search costs of