6 ms·

That's an unkind reading. The implication is that GPL circumvents some relevant restrictions of copyright law in question by creating a legal framework to do so

That's an unkind reading. The implication is that GPL circumvents some relevant restrictions of copyright law in question by creating a legal framework to do so.

jacquesm 4y ago
No it isn't. The GPL does not circumvent anything: it relies very heavily on the fact that the rights holders are able to license their creation as they see fit.
- abetusk 4y ago
  You continue to argue in bad faith. Copyright law is often used to prevent people from copying work. The GPL and its ilk are legal mechanisms designed to allow people to share their work.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > You continue to argue in bad faith. You continue to argue in bad faith. > Copyright law is often used to prevent people from copying work. The GPL and its ilk are legal mechanisms designed to allow people to share their work. Yes, by relying on copyright law, which enables the very existence of those legal mechanisms. Without copyright law, said legal mechanisms are worth less than the paper on which they're printed.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    GPL specifically relies on copyright law as a mechanism to prevent the sharing of work, by enforcing it's virality clause. Without copyright law there would be no way to require GPLed code to continue to be shared with it's users.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The GPL is in no way a circumvention of 'draconian copyright law'. To spell it out: the GPL enumerates the rights and obligations of the recipients of a piece of software and critically relies on copyright in order to be able to do so. Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. So this is the polar opposite of your assertion, copyright is indeed used to prevent people from copying work without authorization. But the GPL and it's ilk are designed to allow people to share their work as long as the recipients respect the terms of the license. It's the critical bits that you left out that make all the difference, and without those critical bits the GPL would be useless and all of those critical bits have teeth only because of the existing framework of copyright law, which allows the rights holder to set the terms under which they license their work. After all, if someone want to share a work without preventing people to do with it as they please then they are utterly free to do so by placing their work in the public domain or by sharing it using a permissive license.
  - flippinburgers 4y ago
    It is ok to admit that you didn't understand how the GPL uses copyright law.
josefx 4y ago
A central part of the GPL is forcing people to publish their modifications in source form. Without copyright law those requirements would be unenforceable and you would be stuck de-compiling encrypted/obfuscated binary blobs of your vendors customized copy of gcc.

That's an unkind reading. The implication is that GPL circumvents some relevant restrictions of copyright law in question by creating a legal framework to do so.

jacquesm 4y ago

No it isn't. The GPL does not circumvent anything: it relies very heavily on the fact that the rights holders are able to license their creation as they see fit.

abetusk 4y ago
You continue to argue in bad faith. Copyright law is often used to prevent people from copying work. The GPL and its ilk are legal mechanisms designed to allow people to share their work.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > You continue to argue in bad faith. You continue to argue in bad faith. > Copyright law is often used to prevent people from copying work. The GPL and its ilk are legal mechanisms designed to allow people to share their work. Yes, by relying on copyright law, which enables the very existence of those legal mechanisms. Without copyright law, said legal mechanisms are worth less than the paper on which they're printed.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  GPL specifically relies on copyright law as a mechanism to prevent the sharing of work, by enforcing it's virality clause. Without copyright law there would be no way to require GPLed code to continue to be shared with it's users.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The GPL is in no way a circumvention of 'draconian copyright law'. To spell it out: the GPL enumerates the rights and obligations of the recipients of a piece of software and critically relies on copyright in order to be able to do so. Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. So this is the polar opposite of your assertion, copyright is indeed used to prevent people from copying work without authorization. But the GPL and it's ilk are designed to allow people to share their work as long as the recipients respect the terms of the license. It's the critical bits that you left out that make all the difference, and without those critical bits the GPL would be useless and all of those critical bits have teeth only because of the existing framework of copyright law, which allows the rights holder to set the terms under which they license their work. After all, if someone want to share a work without preventing people to do with it as they please then they are utterly free to do so by placing their work in the public domain or by sharing it using a permissive license.
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  It is ok to admit that you didn't understand how the GPL uses copyright law.

josefx 4y ago

A central part of the GPL is forcing people to publish their modifications in source form. Without copyright law those requirements would be unenforceable and you would be stuck de-compiling encrypted/obfuscated binary blobs of your vendors customized copy of gcc.