[Linux-aus] Re: Never mind the MyDoom crap, make some noise about this!

[Arjen Lentz]

Hi Cameron,

On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 00:49, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> | Is it wise for us to be seen to oppose any legislation that seeks to 
> | protect copyright from infringement given that our right to distribute 
> | open source software relies on that protection.
> 
> Someone else asserted this point, and it seems a common thread.
> 
> Yes, IP law is what allows you to issue the GPL.  But conversely, without
> IP law you'd broadly not _need_ the GPL.

I think that's too much of a shortcut. And I don't believe it's good.

> I do take the point that the GPL is meant to enforce redistribution in
> full with reuse+mod rights versus in part, but a lot of IP enforcement
> seems aimed at blocking reuse, not hiding stuff, so without IP at all
> things would be pretty good.

Without IP, code would effectively be public domain. But we could have
that now, if indeed that was what we wanted. You can release something
into PD. So I am concluding that that is, overall, not what we want,
because we *are* using the GPL.

The intent of GPL is as you describe above, but explicitly in the
context of copyright law. The original author retains certain rights.
This is an important aspect.


Regards,
Arjen.
-- 
Arjen Lentz, Technical Writer, Trainer
Brisbane, QLD Australia
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com

Sydney 1 Mar 2004 (5 days): Using & Managing MySQL Training
Training,Support,Licenses,T-shirts @ https://order.mysql.com/?marl