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

[Pasi Palmulehto]

> In my opinion such a system would be very complicated, and a nuisance
> for software authors every time they create a program. Also, I think
> free software licenses are working pretty well right now, so I think
> we shouldn't force privative software authors to release their code:
> they are already starting to lose ground.

I don't remember did I simply state it lousy, but since we've had a lot
discussion should the usage be free for private use or for all
non-commercial use, I wrote "non-commercially for
private purposes".

There was no forcing to release the source code. If they don't want to, they simply don't. They won't get creator protection for 25 years but why would they even need it if they are anyways giving the software free?
They don't sell it anyway, no stress from databank.

On the other hand, if they are selling it, it doesn't make so much difference. Softwares have install keys, updates and all anyway, they don't have absolute need for using databank but they could if wish so.


> So we should take care that our copyright reforms don't touch the
> legality of free software licenses. For example, if we unregulate
> every non profit use of copyrighted works, people would be able to use
> GPL code to release privative non profit software, even before the 5
> or 15 or 20 years of granted monopoly on for profit use of authors'
> works.

If they release their software based on GPL for non-profit use, why
would they even bother to make it closed source? At these days they
anyway have access to GPL source code and they are not obligated to do
much for it. Besides I presented earlier the license would stay
same...they could not release it as closed source code software legally.
> 
> Here in Spain it's legal to download movies and music if it' non
> profit, but it' illegal to download privative software. Perhaps we
> also should make a distinction between software and other copyrighted
> works, and more precisely between software code and other copyrighted
> works.
> 
> Or perhaps we shouldn't differentiate them, what do you people think?

I feel every information should be considered on same basis. Music,
movies, software, research data - and even patents if possible.

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