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.

Sure, nut when I say use I normally mean all uses that are legal (read: 
unrestricted by copyright).
 
> 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.

Sure, but you can write a novel that is pretty close to another
novel without being a true derivation. There is court case
giving precendence in that area.

Again note that copyright only protects unique expression and there
is usually quite a lot more unique expression in a novel than 
your run of the mill GPL:ed software which in large parts lies
much closer to the facts, idea, methods etc that are unprotected
by copyright

So I think it would in most cases be quite easy to avoid being
a derivation. Especially if the GPL:ed work is used unmodified 
in a larger proprietary work. The GPL:ed usually doesn't allow
this so it would effectively circumvent the GPL.
 
> 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.

Sure, but the point is that at the end user it can be part of proprietary,
closed-source without any distribution of the works together has ever
been made.
 
> 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.

I'm not so sure. The main problem is that is it very few (almost none)
court cases that gives any precendence as to what exactly is allowed.

It only takes one actually case to establish precendence and then the
floodgates are very likely to be opened wide.

In the future (and even now) with automatic installation from the Internet
supported by many operating systemes, actually needing to distribute
somebody else work in order to build a new work using it becomes less and
less important so it might rather quickly make copyleft restriction a la GPL

quite meaningless, since it would be very easy for the end user to install
everything regardless.

Again note that normal copyrighted work is not effected since each end user
is legally required to paid for the orginal work regardless of what
modification he later buys and applies. So don't expect any large outcry
to change the law except from copyleft supported.
 
> Anyway, just thought I'd clarify my satements, which still 
> stand.  I did 
> screw it up by using "use."  Thanks for pointing that out.

No problem.