Re: Economics and the GPL

"Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
> 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?

I never said he was consistant in applying his views....  :)

> > 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.

actually, it doesn't vanish.  Let's say software copyrights expire in 5 years
and use Emacs as an example.  What this means to the FSF is that all code > 5
years old will become PD, and all code <= 5 years is GPLed.  So, FSF would not
be able to enforce the GPL on the PD code.  This is the exact same reason why
they won't use Xemacs' code - since they can't enforce the GPL on it (as they
are not the copyright holders), they cannot use it.  So, in this scenario, 
they could only enforce the gpl on code that is < 5 years old - all the rest,
they would be in really weak legal standing.  My only point was that it *fact*
that they find the dilution of GPLed code not acceptable (otherwise, they would
use the GPLed code in Xemacs).  Given this, there is a good reason to think that
FSF's position on this is far from certain (I didn't say they were lying either).
 
> 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...

Ah, this is a different issue.  But this would move it out of the copyright
scheme and put it into the patent scheme (which I think should have been done
in the first place).  So, essentially, just as current patents offer protection
at the expense of disclosure, you would require the code for the same reason.
A rational plan, but you don't see FSF advocating anything like that.... (at
least, if they do, they're awfully quiet about it)

-r