🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12344@pur-ee.UUCP> hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) writes:
<The propagation of copyleft rights via use of copylefted tools is an absurd
<power trip:  imagine a fellow inventing a new type of nail and then claiming
<ownership/control of all houses built using at least one such nail because
<the assemblage of the house is fundamentally the use of the nails, not a
<function of the lumber used. 

That's an absurd analogy. Try this one for size: a fellow invents a
new type of hammer, and allows anyone to use it to build houses so
long as they give away the plans for the house.

<This certainly violates the spirit of pure
<academic research as I see it; all we're supposed to want is proper credit
<for our good work, not a claim on somebody else's efforts.

You should take a a carefull look at copyleft as you've obviously
misinterpreted the entire thing. In any case, copyleft is much more in
the academic spirit than "publishing" software through the normal
channels; it makes others share the spirit if they use your tools and
want recognition for what they've done.

<Further, if we publicize the PD software enough, few people will pay big
<money for a commercial rip-off of it (maybe somebody else will get rich off
<of our work, but in some sense that's what academia is all about ;-).

Um, who's going to pay for that publicity?

<Anyway, here's what I think we will be doing:  a pure PD release with a
<credit/modification history which must be maintained, but which carries no
<further rights.

Nice idea. To bad you can't do that. If you release something into the
public domain, then the public can do whatever they want with it -
compile & sell it, modify it in anyway they want and copyright that,
etc.

If you wish to prevent people from doing something to a piece of
software (say, removing your name & adding their own, or fixing bugs
and/or making enhancements and not telling you about them), you _must_
copyright the software. You can then grant the rights to copy it with
whatever conditions you want - for instatce, that it include a
modification history. Of course, you're now requireing others to do
work if they want to let others use that work. Isn't that nasty of
you?

<In other words, people would be free to sell modified
<versions of our software...  but they must acknowledge the lineage of their
<product in some way.

Sounds like a copyleft to me. There, people are required to make
_original_ source of the copylefted software, or any derivative work,
to anyone they give binaries. They are also prohibited from forbidding
others to give away that software. They even require that
modifications be clearly marked (less work than your modification
history).

	<mike
--
Tell me how d'you get to be				Mike Meyer
As beautiful as that?					mwm@berkeley.edu
How did you get your mind				ucbvax!mwm
To tilt like your hat?					mwm@ucbjade.BITNET