On 1/5/15, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
Both restore rights that copyright otherwise restricts.
No. Copyright exists automatically in default state of "all rights reserved".
But that shifts the ground on what Rob was speaking to. Sure you can say 'in the default state of "all rights reserved"', that 'copyright exists automatically', and we can even go so far as to say the --current legal regime-- grants 'copyright protection by default', which in jurisdictions I am aware of, is the case. BUT, copyright itself, is a legal fiction. THIS (as I read it) is the foundation on which Rob makes his point. So, we most of us do in fact live in an artificial statutory regime of various legal fictions, one of which is called copyright, the right to make copies, and the right to grant (or restrict, by default or otherwise) others the right to make "copies". In THIS regime (default statutory fiction rights, re copying), the BSD and GPL licenses "restore rights that copyright otherwise restricts" - Rob's words are precise, correct, and clear.
Any "restoration" you may wish or take for yourself within that is an abuse of the author's rights as you have none.
This is a non-argument, and I'm not sure you're making a point, or making your point in a way I can understand. The "restoration" that Rob speaks to is **the author's** choice of license, the *author*, who by "statutory legal fiction right by default" is granted exclusive right to make copies of --author's own work--, chooses, of --his own free will-- to "restore" to recipients of author's said works, certain rights otherwise restricted by said statute fiction rights. Rob's words are clear and simple. Mine are verbose. Grarpamp, am I understanding your position correctly, or am I missing something (as in, from my viewpoint, you were missing Rob's point)?
Any rights to the author's work you may have are granted to you as the author chooses.
In the regime of legal fiction rights, yes...
Subject to various limited notions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_safety_valves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
The GPL ensures that you are free to use the software even if you receive it from a third party. BSD doesn't do that.
Yes it does.
No it does not. GPL ensures that recipients may not -further restrict- the freedoms 'granted' by the GPL (which is presumably the author's desire and reason for choosing to license under GPL); BSD only ensures -first recipient- has "GPL like" freedoms, in addition to the "freedom to futher distribute under proprietary license", which some of us consider to be a freedom that ought not be granted, and for those who consider this way, the GPL is therefore a much better choice - the point being, if the -first recipient- of BSD licensed software thereafter distributes under freedom-removing license (proprietary), said recipients are no longer using free/libre software, but proprietary software - this is what GPL attempts to handle/ improve upon, and yes, some people prefer to distribute their software with the right for recipients to distribute as proprietary ("the freedom to take away freedom").
The author can slap BSD or GPL on it, give it to Alice who gives it to Bob who gives it Carl who gives it to you which you then "use". There's no difference between the two there.
:) Your liberal viewpoint is technically correct, -for the example you give-; but as you must well know, Alice or Bob may "remove the BSD license when they distribute" (or to use your term, "slap on a proprietary license") to Bob and Carl respectively. Ignoring this alternative pathway in your argument, does not make that pathway non-existent.
Therefore BSD "grants" less freedom than the GPL.
No it doesn't. This has already been explained. GPL people often confuse freedom vs force(d open source redistribution), and permissive vs restrictive. Don't get confused.
On this point I agree with you. BSD grants all the freedoms that GPL does, -as well as- the freedom for the recipient to add restrictions of any sort when he further distributes. So in that technical sense, the BSD license provides "more freedom". GPL proponents (which include myself), consider that the GPL's 'hack' of the legal fiction rights granted by statute law, is a useful mechanism to work towards maximising the amount of free/libre software available in the world, over the long term. It is a valid, and apparently effective, strategy. And one I wholeheartedly support :) I welcome reviews of my new play, Pirates of the Commons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_tre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_copyright
Pirates of the Commons. ================= A play by the freedom-deprived, of the freedom-deprived, and for the freedom-deprived. Arr! <parrot> No freedom. No freedom. Arr. Arr.
<the ghost of christmas Apple> Arrgh me hardies, let us pillage and plunderrr the code of the mighty ship BSD Commons. She sits with her sails a flappin' promiscuously in the breeze tharrr! Arr. <draws out monocular and views the tarrrget> Ay lads, she's sittin' vulnerable in them tharr waters of statutory easy lays and a wealth of booty for us 'n' us alone does she provide. Arr. <sound of whips cracking> Code laddies, code! No slack till the walled garrrden is done lads! <parrot> No freedom. No freedom. Arr. Arr. END.