[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model

[Pasi Palmulehto]

> I like the idea, but leaning on Rick's opinion about a 5 year
> copyright period in total:
> 
> 
> "The stance of the Pirate Party is that copyrights should last for
> 5-10 years, and they only restrict what you can buy and sell."
> http://www.atomicboysoftware.com/blog/2009/05/rick-falkvinge-copyright-regime-vs-civil-liberties/
> 

> This does however causes a dilemma with free sorftware (GPL etc):
> 
> 
> "The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use
> copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits
> everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license.
> Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license.
> And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source
> code."
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
> 
> 
> We do want free licences like GPL to have effect without todays
> copyright time (the implications on other content such as media is
> currently unacceptable!) so should we have exceptions on free licences
> or is a copyright of 20 years sufficient to not have a negative effect
> in the protection that the free licences are trying to protect? RMS
> also presents other solutions such as all closed software should be
> released with source code after the copyright time expires etc. that
> can be discussed. 
> 
> 
> So how do we find a compromise that works?

With the 3-steps system, I feel the dilemma isn't so problematic
anymore. Work is pretty free after 5 years, you can use it almost in any
ways as long as you compensate it with small fee.

Main reason for GPL to want same license for derivates, is to keep the
software free. With 3-steps that could still be preserved. If the
license says you need to have same license model and share the source
code, you should do that or leave the software along. Commercial
derivate use don't need to release from original license model.

After 20 years...well, it's very very very rare to use software version
older than 20 years. If so, I'd say be my guest, do what you want. In
most (almost all cases) software is already too old over 5 years _or_ it
has evolved with new versions which have the new protection time.

I love GPL and almost (if not all) software I use, are GPL licensed, but
still protecting software age over 20 years isn't realistic imho.

There are even people who say GPL isn't really free, GPL ties to use the
same license. I understand the reason to do that, thou it's most
necessary with new and evolving software under constant developement.

As much I like, I think laws should not be written to handle differently
because of license used. I also like RMS idea what you just described,
but it's very hard if not impossible to set up and I simply don't like
forcing - It would mean forcing to publish the source code.


-- 
Pasi "Scoffa" Palmulehto
Leader of Finnish Pirate Party