> Copyleft—the GNU license, Creative Commons etc.—as I understand
> them, are clever hacks designed to subvert the copyright system
> as it stands, basically to *free* people from it. Artists who
> choose these licenses are expressing disgust with the system.
The point is that they are able to choose.
> These licenses may derive their legal teeth from copyright
> itself, but they exist as criticisms of it. They are good, I'd
> say, not because of our copyright system but in spite of it.
I'm not defending the present system. The real question
is whether you own the fruits of your labor, and have the right
to do what you choose with it. If all creative work automatically
fell into the public domain, nobody would be able to issue it
under any license.
> I hear this "We have a crappy implementation of it, but copyright is
> good in principle" idea often, but I'm not sure I know which principle
> is being talked about.
>
> What is this principle? Can we name it?
Freedom and justice. It's your work, you decide.
Don't get me wrong. I run software all the time that was
written a/o is still being written by people who charge nothing
for it; as an old retired fart on a small pension, I probably
couldn't run anything else if I tried. I'm intensely glad that so
many people who can write code are so generous with it.
But unless they own their work, how can they choose to
give it away?
If you follow several lists and forums, as I expect you
do, you must notice that many of those who post to them also make
their living writing code. Some few, like the RedHat employees at
Fedora, may be getting paid to give their work away. Others
create some software at work, and some at home -- and contribute
what they do at home to the cause.
If they weren't being paid for what they write for their
employers, what would they live on?
--
Beartooth Implacable, Curmudgeonly Codger Learning Linux
On the Internet, you can never tell who is a dog --
supposing you care -- but you can tell who has a mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment