Re: Economics and the GPL

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:

> The only weapon that the FSF has in promoting their agenda is the GPL.  
> To the extent that this is undermined, rms/FSF is unhappy.  Read
> http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html and read "What is the 
> Legal Issue?"

You know, it's funny that the Stallman quote on that page talks about the 
"unfair competition" because XEmacs can draw on GNU Emacs, but GNU Emacs is 
not similarly free to draw on XEmacs.  Funny, that's exactly like the 
unfair competition that BSD code faces from the GPL, where GPL code can 
freely draw on BSD code, but BSD code is unable to draw on GPL code.  Funny 
how Stallman objects to the XEmacs vs. GNU Emacs competition, yet he seems 
quite sanguine about GPL vs. BSD competition.

What, did he never learn and understand the Golden Rule?

> So, it's unclear that they would want various portions of FSF code be 
> turned into public domain (gcc for example), for the same reason that 
> they don't use XEmacs' GPLed code.  Remember that FSF not only wants to 
> keep GPL out of propriatary systems, but also compel source to be shipped 
> with binaries, and disallow copyright protections.  Saying the FSF will 
> blunt their only weapon is like saying political advocates take an oath 
> of silence.  It *might* happen, but the incentives are really against it.

You may be jumping to conclusions here -- the legal issues with XEmacs code 
would vanish the instant it falls into the public domain, so you can't be 
sure that it's appropriate to generalize from that alone.

Still, he may have mixed feelings if copyright is nonzero, but too short...
(He'd be thrilled to eliminate copyrights, I think, at least on software.)

> > I'm sure that if a reduced copyright term allows GPL code to be eventually 
> > incorporated into proprietary products, Stallman may not be thrilled with 
> > that, but he can console himself with the fact that it cuts both ways, and 
> > proprietary code could be reused in new GPL works just as quickly.
> 
> Not if it was not published in the first place.  It will only mean that 
> binaries will be free.  Not the code, which is what FSF wanted to begin 
> with.

Well, the code will be free, but it may not be available.  That's the rub.

A solution to this would be to go back to copyright registration, requiring 
the source code of copyrighted software to be deposited with the Copyright 
Office for safekeeping until it expires.  Of course, software publishers 
would fight tooth and nail against this, but given the public interest in 
gaining access to that source code once it falls into the public domain, 
there's a lot to be said for such a requirement, as public policy...

Deven