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

[Nicolas Sahlqvist]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Eduardo Robles Elvira <edulix at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/11/3 Félix Robles <redeadlink at gmail.com>:
> > I want to ask something: Should all software be, by law, free software?
> Or
> > should authors at least release the code after a certain period of time
> and
> > allow everyone to distribute and modify it?
>
> If you say because of:
>
> Pasi said:
> > 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.
>
> He didn't say that all software must be free software by law, and I
> don't think no one wants to enforce such a thing.  What's being
> proposed is that everyone shares the source after copyright ends, so
> that someone else can continue the development. This can be really
> problematic, because after copyright ends maybe no one might have
> access to the source, it might have been lost. If for that matter we
> require everyone to submit the source code of its code so that it can
> be later on released, its even more problematic (people will be
> reticent of sending their unreleased source code, obviously)
>
> It was me who summarized what RMS wrote with those lines, Pasi commented on
this with:

"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."

I do however agree that RMS escrow solution would have a hard time to win
acceptance and hard to enforce due to the reasons that Pasi and you states.


- Nicolas
  PPI / PPSE member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091103/8638a7ab/attachment.htm>