🚀 go-pugleaf

I've seen a few postings about the software patent, interface copyright,
and (now) music copyright issues that say something about a solution for
these issues that would satisfy the FSF (sometimes called GNU, erroneously
in this case I believe).  I think these solutions aren't going to be
satisfactory to the FSF.  For example:

In article <DRW.91May29002801@paley.mit.edu> drw@paley.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:

   I'm not certain of the details, but the copyright rules for music are
   different than for other works.  In particular, once you've published
   a piece of music, you can't prevent others from performing it -- you
   have to license it to all comers for a reasonable fee.  (BMI and ASCAP
   handle collecting and distributing the license fees.)  This is unlike
   other works, where copyright gives you complete control over who can
   and cannot use your work.

   Perhaps this is a workable solution to user interface copyrights --
   unless you're a diehard Gnuist, the problem with user interface
   copyrights is not that they enable the inventor of an interface
   feature to make money off it, but rather that they enable him to
   prevent others from using the feature at all.  If there were a similar
   compulsory licensing feature to interface copyrights, most of their
   problems would be solved.

I can understand why it is tempting to believe such arrangements, whether in
dealing with music, software copyright, software patents, and so on, will
"solve" the "GNU problem".

I think they won't for one simple reason: the raison d'etre of the FSF (of
which Project GNU is its main thrust, but it's really a UN*X system, while
the FSF is the organization that wants to write free software per se) is to
produce code that people can freely copy for friends and neighbors, or
charge for the distributions if they want.  However the product (code) is
not allowed to be "proprietized" by deriving something from it (which can be
done by making trivial changes) then protecting the derivative via copyright.
That way ports and such are still "free" by this definition (in the same
sense we in the U.S. are "free" because slavery is not an option we are
permitted to choose for ourselves -- whether this is true freedom is another
issue, not solvable in the gnu forum).

So any solution to these problems that says "enforce a maximum permitted
license fee on software patents, interface copyrights, etc" must ALSO say
"permit derived works to be placed under copyleft [i.e. freely redistributable
but no in the public domain]" for the solution to be acceptable to FSFers like
myself.

That is not likely -- I mean, if they do this, then us FSFers can just
pay the (low) fee once on any such item, then freely distribute the result --
because those interested in preserving such things want to make money off of
every distribution.

Oh, maybe an intermediate solution can be found, like "if placed under
copyleft, any distributions made for any tangible form of remuneration ($$)
must include the licensing fee to be sent to the owners of the licensed
technology".  That way, "free" distributions (like ftp) would remain free,
but things like the FSF's tape distributions and other organizations (like
Austin Code Works?) would be sending license fees in.  Hmm, perhaps a
reasonable intermediate solution, again unlikely, but I haven't thought about
this much.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu