Patrik Stridvall wrote:
No. If anything, it seems to be using licencing rules to negate copyrights. It really wants to make a copyright into "a right to copy it". Even taking what you say, if you extend what is "fair" use, you obviously must be making it less fair somewhere else....
As I said, very simplified.
What I meant is that the mechanism that forces release of the extension of the LGPL (read: copyleft) is similar to the case where fair use is extended so I take legally take the work instead.
while this is one *small* aspect of copyleft, the *GPL extends well beyond that. "fair use" does not allow you to redistribute work,
Yes, it does, that it what fair use is: The right to distribute somebody elses work or part of work without a license under some circumstances.
The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work.
nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively).
Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others under any license. You just have to give it back under the LGPL as well.
The copyleft mechanism forces "push" of the source code which is better in the case of software.
I by this wanted to illustrate that copyleft is not something inherantly "evil" as Brett Glass are apparently crusading against.
I'll let Brett speak for himself (not like I can stop him :) ), but I didn't see an argument that 'copyleft' was bad. It was the *GPL is bad. Just as rms think proprietary programs are evil, Brett and others think that the loss of copyright protections are just as bad or worse.
Perhaps. But as you said, let Brett speak for himself.
I'm not quite as concerned as Brett, as I think the viral nature of the *GPL will eventually be thrown out in US court.
Yes, I think that too.
-
Patrik Stridvall