[linux-elitists] [email@example.com: Microsoft proposing FreeSoftware ban]
Seth David Schoen
Thu May 3 20:30:44 PDT 2001
Mr . Bad writes:
> >>>>> "SDS" == Seth David Schoen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> SDS> I agree, and every time somebody says "but the GPL needs
> SDS> copyright to work" I think "only as long a proprietary
> SDS> copyrights are honored".
> Yeah, the only way I can see it being a problem is that, in a world
> without copyright protection, someone might take a GPL'd program, and
> make changes to it, and distribute that changed software in binary
> form. Which, like, if it was proprietary commercial software, would
> get copied all over the place immediately.
Those changes, if they were particularly interesting, could be reverse
engineered. When the _nature_ of the changes was described, someone
could re-implement them in the free version.
Uninteresting changes could just be ignored -- in this scenario
there's nothing wrong with proprietary software, in a certain sense.
> And if it was a trojan or something, it would be studiously
> avoided. After all, in a world without copyright enforcement, who
> would bother to hold back their source code? Only folks with bad code
> embedded in their binaries is who.
"Anyone who uses a C compiler must have something to hide!"
> Is there some other danger to Free Software from a complete
> disappearance of copyright? I don't think so.
I don't think so either -- if software patents and the DMCA disappear
Seth David Schoen <email@example.com> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
More information about the linux-elitists