Re: [ox-en] Re: usage of software and the CGPL
- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:44:41 -0800
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:12PM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], z3118338 wrote:
why do yout hink the CGPL is unenforceable and the GPL is?
Because I don't think you can build a contract that is revoked as soon
as you violate the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
For god sakes, article 27 says:
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he is the author.
I'm not even sure what that means in the context of free software but
I know for fact that there are folks out there that disagree (I have
on my bookshelf WIPO's conference proceeding from their meeting on
intellectual property as a human right).
And there is *so* much more. That's not including the other clauses of
the CGPL that include stuff like:
1.1. You do not prevent the reduction of Nature's functions and
diversity being systematically subject to increasing
concentrations of materials and substances extracted from
the earth.
Short of genocide, even international governance and judicial bodies
aren't very good at deciding who has violated the UDHR. It was simply
not created to be an enforceable document included, inline, in the
text of a software license or anything even remotely like it.
Please, read the license and tell me you think it's enforceable. I'll
be very surprised if you can.
where is the "legal roof" that either are enforceable or
unenforceable?
I don't know if the GPL is enforceable. I believe that it is though
and I think we'll get some feedback on this in regards to SCO quite
soon. I think there are some bits (namely the parts about linking)
that are little more tenuous than the rest.
I don't think that what the GPL requires is too far outside of the
type of things that we know are enforceable in software licenses. More
importantly, I think it's usually extremely clear when a GPL violation
has occurred. If you have included GPLed code in your program and are
not provided source code, it's a violation.
Making the argument that someone is not respecting the fact that
"family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State" and therefore cannot
use a piece of software seems like it would be impossible.
And why do we even bother with questions of encforceability if we
are the germ of a new society that doesnt care about who uses our
stuff????
First, I do care who uses my stuff. I just don't think trying to lay
it out in the text of a license is a responsible or smart thing to do.
Second, I care a lot about enforceability of copyleft clauses because
without them, my own work will become proprietary software, and put
into service against my goals, in a way that at the very least will
make things much more difficult for me.
Copyleft is what I want and what I think I can get in a software
license. Human Rights are not.
still hanging around and "off topic"
Bah! This is quite on topic IMHO. I appreciated the questions.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/