[GRASS5] Re: [Fwd: whinging about GRASS again]

[Jack Varga]

Mark P. Line wrote:

> Open source software is by definition *NOT* in the public domain if it is
> constrained by copyright or by a license agreement.

Copyleft uses (US) copyright law to REMOVE the CONSTRAINT you speak of. 
  You can sell, give away copyleft software, etc.  The only thing you 
are CONSTRAINED do to is CONSTRAIN it.  Recursive logic that is 
brilliant IMO.

> The works of Shakespeare or Mozart can be published and distributed (for
> free or for money) by anyone in any form without infringing upon any
> property rights.

Primarily because a.) they were never "protected" by US copyright law in 
the first place, and b.) their copyright protection would have long 
since expired had they been.

While not an attorney, one thing is for certain, US intellectual 
property laws are dynamic, constantly being modified.  They are not 
universally adopted across the world, and since when do legislatures 
define the meaning of words?  That's Webster's domain.  They merely 
impose their interpretation of a word, (or in this case phrase), which 
may or may not be overruled, ruled unconstitutional, flawed, etc., by 
the next judge to hear a case involving the definition.

FWIW, by your definition, that which is deemed "public domain" is more 
constrained by copyright than "copyleft," because derivative work of 
something public domain can fall out of the public domain.  This can't 
happen with copyleft(c).  Again, it uses the sometimes twisted logic of 
US intellectual property law to prevent that from happening.  That is 
not to say that IP is entirely wrong (IMO).  It certainly has its place. 
  Copyleft was derived in part to stimulate and encourage collaborative 
and constructive research and development because copyright was taking 
TOO much of that liberty away, which was ultimately hurting the public. 
  Case in point?  Take away GPL and watch what happens to developing 
country's intellectual capacity and infrastructure.  (Not that that 
could ever even happen).

Taking away the GPL by ruling it unconstitutional is not going to stop 
the flow of freely and openly disseminating information.  Its just going 
to turn us all into criminals under the US's definition.  And our 
prisons certainly don't need to add 10 million (or whatever the number 
is) of intellectuals to their roll call.  There is enough worldly 
evidence to suggest that doesn't work either.  I don't think the self 
proclaimed leaders of the free world want to tread there.

US laws are written to protect the people first and foremost.  They 
protect corporations secondly.  That's not going to change no matter who 
is elected, regardless the black-box voting system we're required to 
use.  When corporate interests trump the public at large, we are all in 
for a battle of Minas Tirith of our own...

-jv