Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Copyright vs. Copyleft

[Chris Croughton]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 05:34:31PM +0000, Lee Braiden wrote:

> Chris Croughton wrote:
> 
> >Take Zlib for example. That software is licensed saying (paraphrased):
> >
> > Keep the authors' names on it, don't pretend you wrote it when you
> > didn't.
> >
> > If you change it, say so and don't pretend that we put in the bugs
> > that you added.
> >
> > Keep this notice in the code.
> >
> >If you get a copy of Zlib, that is free, you can run it, study it,
> >change it, rebuild it and distribute it as you like.  MS can also do
> >those things, but they don't (because it's not copylefted) have to give
> >you or anyone else their changes.  /Their version/ is not free software,
> >but that does not affect in any way the version you have, that is still
> >free software.
> > 
> >
> But that making the very big assumption that you *do have* a copy.  If 
> someone *else* has a copy, they are not even required to supply it to 
> you, never mind supply it in tact.

Very true -- no one is ever required to supply their thoughts to you in
any form.  You seem to want to be able to use something I produce
without having to do anything yourself, tough.  If a composer writes and
performs music, are you going to require them to give you a printed
score or a MIDI file as well?

You have a choice, if someone produces software and doesn't give out the
source code, you don't have to use it.  You can write your own, or find
someone who does give you their source code, or go without.  That is
totally unaffected by the presence or absence of copyright.  The
presence and misuse of copyright, however, can restrict your freedom to
write your own version if you have ever seen the copyright version
(which is why much of my code is written "clean room" from the
specifications without looking at the code it replaces).

> Without copyright, your own ISP can take the code as soon as you
> upload, and put their own name on it.  Not even those few simple
> requests by zlib authors would be kept in tact, much less free
> software.

They can, yes.  And pretty soon they would become known as a set of
liars and plagiarisers, and no one would believe them.  But the authors
would still be free to distribute their versions, and anyone who had a
copy could still exercise every one of the four freedoms the FSF claims:

  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

  * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
    needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
    this.

  * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
    (freedom 2).

  * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
    to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
    Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Which of those freedoms do you think you would lose if there was no
copyright at all?

Since copyright does exist, I apply it to my own work.  In more innocent
times I used to donate it to the public domain...

Chris C