[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[ingegnue at riseup.net (IngeGNUe)]

On 04/08/16 22:51, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On 4/8/2016 9:36 PM, IngeGNUe wrote:
>> * With copyleft, in order to privatize/proprietize this software
> 
> Stop. Denying private ownership of software is the essence of copyleft.
> You cannot privatize copylefted works.


I think we're getting tripped up on language or I'm not conveying my
ideas in the best way. You know you can buy out the copyright holder?
This can be, and is, done with proprietary stuff so as to gain the right
to free the license.[1] It is also possible to sell exceptions to the
GPL so as to license it under different terms, such as for the inclusion
into proprietary software.[2] So, related to the quote below, the only
difference copyleft has to permissive licenses is paying the copyright
holder. Makes sense?

> 
>> * With a permissive license, you don't have to pay up. Just snatch it
>> up. Much easier to include with your private property. Doesn't do much
>> for the commons, and in the long run can be detrimental to said commons.
> 
> Permissive licenses prohibit this, too. You cannot "snatch up" and
> privatize open source software per se. You can, of course, privatize
> derivatives of OSS. Your private derivatives make your entire work
> better (at least in principle; GIGO) which is beneficial to the
> recipients of your work. The original remains in public circulation for
> anyone who wishes to use it. The only long-term "detriment" to
> permissive licenses is the commons don't get an immediate handout from
> you; they either pay you for your work, wait for the copyright to
> expire, or create their own.
> 

[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/libreplanet-discuss%40libreplanet.org/msg02874.html
[2] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions