> Well that's perfectly fair if that's what the original author wants. [. . .] You are, after all, wanting to use MY copyrighted code to build something and dis

> Well that's perfectly fair if that's what the original author wants. [. . .] You are, after all, wanting to use MY copyrighted code to build something and distribute it. The form of your commentary here seems to assume that appamatto agrees that copyright represents an actual "right". I do not think that assumption is reasonable in this case. > "Licensees" don't have any rights violated - they have whatever rights they chose to accept or negotiate or purchase or whatever when they decided to use my code and what that would imply. In the absencse of that license, they simply can't use my code at all. Are you suggesting that there is a basic human right embodied in copyright law, or are you just labeling legal powers and privileges with the term "rights"? > I think I'm missing your point though - what is it exactly? If you do not assume that everyone in the world shares your own beliefs about the appropriateness of copyright law, I think you will take a huge step toward understanding appamatto's essay a bit better.