[nzlug] Re: M$ is targeting YOU

[Simon Bridge]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 22:59 +1200, cr wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 21:42 +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
> > There is only one legal conclusion. And don't forget, as any supporter of
> > the GPL must support a similar argument. Because the whole free/open
> > source movement cannot survive if this argument fails. We have linux and
> > all its GNU and other supporting software because people are bound by
> > licenses that they accept n one way or another, not in spite of those
> > licenses.
> 
> I don't agree. 

Actually, I think Nick has a point - he just didn't express it well.

The GPL is *built* on copywrite law.
Without the GPL, OSS/FS and GNU/Linux would be on much shakier ground.
In this case, copywrite seems to be doing its job of protecting rights -
even though it is not the way the law was originally conceived of being
used.

In the environment in which the GPL was conceived, it could reasonably
be asserted that, without copywrite law, the fledgling OSS movement
would have had great trouble achieving the success it has enjoyed.

As a lawyer, Peter is understandably confused by the general lack of
respect for the law that exists in practically everyone else.

If copywrite didn't exist at all, there would be no problem. Indeed -
agreements could exist many centuries before copywrite law even existed.
Works have been created (Shakespear?) and money made in the absence of
legally enforceable copywrite.

Personally, I think the main strength of the GPL is that people *want*
to comply (not the copywrite law). The GPL is seldom breached, and when
breached, seldom by individuals. With regular licenses it is exactly the
other way around (mp3 *cough*).

So it is entirely possible that a free licence such as the GPL could
well exist without the foundation of copywrite law.

The main reason the GPL must be so carefully phrased is that we cannot
trust corporations from trying to find a way around it. We expect
companies to act in bad faith, and this is why Nick has a point.

In fact, law is a pretty weak way to control a society. The
effectiveness of a law depends on the willingness of a population to
comply with the law balanced against the ability to enforce that law.

When enforcement is paramount over willingness, we have a police state.