RE: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

> >If you use that definition all private property are undemocratic.
> >So the point is still please don't us the word. I (and I guess most
> 
> Ok, so now you want to tell me what words to use? :)

You can use whatever words you wish. However don't be suprised if
people misunderstand you if you do.
 
> >other people) doesn't define democratic in that broad sense. So using
> >the word, confuses more than help. Again please us other words.
> 
> Ok, since you already reminded me, that you are not a native english 
> speaker I will remind you that the same is the case for 
> me(and I never 
> lived in an english speaking country btw). I used that word 
> because it was 
> the first to come to my mind, and I think it describes quite 
> well what I 
> wanted to say.

I would rather say that it might describe a feeling you had
then you said it.

However I don't consider the GPL to have anything to do
even remotely with western style democracy. But never mind.

> >Futhermore most democratic societies have voted to allow 
> private property
> >as well as intellectual property like copyright. So not making your
> >code available to non-payers is explictly allowed.
> 
> Exactly. And the GPL also uses that right to make the code 
> only available 
> to those who will contribute back their changes.

That society have given GPL the right to enforce parts or
all of it, is not at all clear.

First of all it is important to note that copyright is not at all
treated as normal property. There are such things as fair use
and first sale that limits copyright. Futhermore copyright doesn't
extend to fact, ideas, methods etc at all.

Now, the GPL explictly permits everybody that got a copy to make
more copies and give to others so in effect everybody wants a
copy can get one.

So with the GPL you have already given up the right to prevent
non-payers to use the code. So the right you are refering,
if it exists at all, is not the same right the one I was refering to.

Also note that first sale says that the copyright holder loses control
of how THAT COPY is used, modified or resold (read: redistributed).

Sure the GPL tries to use the mechanisms of copyright laws 
to prevent people that modifies the work to redistribute 
the combined work unless they release it under the GPL. But
then since the end user can always get the modified work himself,
only the modification themselves is really needed to be distributed.

So it is not all clear that copyright is meant to give the GPL the
right to do what is tries to nor that the law in is present form
is an effective mean to enforce it.

Indeed, since the end user through first sale have been given the right
to do almost whatever he wants with his copy (except duplicate
and distribute), it is a little unclear why he (and other owners of
a copy) shouldn't be allow to hire somebody to modify their copies.
I can't see any such paragraph in copyright law.

So it is a little unclear what right you are refering to.
You can't both have the cake and eat it. Copyright law have
obviously granted you one possibillity. That is charge for
each copy. You choose not to take it. Your loss.