Re: Economics and the GPL

Patrik Stridvall wrote:

>
>I have no problem at all on how my code is used.
>Nuclear research, animal testing, whatever.
>
>However, if I want to make a living I DO care if my work
>is duplicated and distributed to others that might have paid me.
> 
>
>>This has nothing to do with the right of access, but the 
>>right of use. 
>> Just as a novelist will not allow their work to be used in another's 
>>novel (though it does not affect access to the original work), source 
>>code authors should have the right to determine how their 
>>code is used.
>>
>
>No and copyright disagrees with you here. First sale says that you
>no say in what happends to your work after you have sold it for example.
>
>In short:
>Copyright primarily regulates distribution. Not use.
>

You are correct: I should not have used the word "use."

However.

First sale makes allowances for use of a single, purchased copy.  You 
are still not allowed to photocopy your book and distribute the 
photocopy.  So copyright *does* restrict some uses, as well as distribution.

In some cases, "use" and "distribution" are equivelent; it was these 
cases to which I referred.  In my novelist example, I was not discussing 
limiting how the work was used per se, but how portions were 
distributed.  In the case of the second author including portions of the 
first author's work, *use equates to distribution.*  In the case of 
derived works, distribution of derived works equates to distribution of 
portions of the original work.

If I release GPLd code, I cannot limit how my code is used.  I can only 
say it may not be distributed as part of a proprietary, closed-source 
product.  Again, "use" in this sense equates to distribution.

Now, in the case of the patches:  You are completely correct.  I agree 
that you can both legally and morally create a patch against GPLd source 
code, and distribute that patch to whomever you wish, and license that 
patch in whatever form you wish.  You just can't release the binaries, 
which is a derived work.  This could, I imagine, create a "gray-market" 
for patches against GPLd works.  But it would be a miasma of legal 
wrangelling.

Anyway, just thought I'd clarify my satements, which still stand.  I did 
screw it up by using "use."  Thanks for pointing that out.

                    - Tony