[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

[Christian Hufgard]

Ed Galligan wrote:
>> Technically not. But you use something without compensating the creator.
> Again you're using the word "compensate" - what is being compensated -
> that's a point of RMS's you didn't address.

The use of a copy you created. Oh I know. Now it's time for the usual "I
did not ask anybody to created the orginal" - but why do you want to
have a copy of it?


>> What would you say, if someone uses your code without releasing the new
>> software under GPL again? You have no loss in money, there ist just less
>> free code than if he had released it under GPL again.
> That would (usually) involve the redistribution of the code under another
> licence (if not GPL) - noone is proposing re-licencing artists work, so this
> analogy is utterly irrelevant.

In the p2p-Case, you make it available to the public. So you modify the
license. Or do you have bought a public distribution license?


> A better analogy would be "what would you say if someone uses your code
> without (a) financially compensating you directly for the copy and (b)
> paying you directly each and every time you use the code in a public place,
> or use it to create anything new" - this is what the music industry is
> claiming is wrong to do with copied music.

Nope. I want to stress the point, that you break the agreement between
you and the one, who offered you the licence. Why do you accept the GPL
and not the license of a music cd?

Christian