> All this GPL stuff is so much BS.

That, or course, is an opinion, and its worth is somewhere 
within the normal range of values for free opinions*. 
Equally varianly valuable material follows.

> Some a*hole

Why you choose to use profanity, with or without *'s to 
describe somebody who invents a concept is unclear, but it 
does indicate what weighting factor to use with your 
opinion. [[Above or below unity depending on one's own 
opinions ;-) ]].

> can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same
> legal weight as copyright.

Nobody asked them to, Sir, she said.
Copyleft and GPL and all the other schemes ae in fact 
subsets of copyright. They do not attempt to convey as of 
right to the owners of a 'work' any right that that do not 
have under copyright law. They may 'suggest' that the owner 
of a work request other rights in exchange for permission to 
use their copyrighted work. All complaints about such 
schemes are complaints about the powers vested by copyright 
law. This does not make the complaints invalid - but it 
should be noted what is being complained about. To each 
question of the type 'why should I ..."/ "what right have 
they to ..." etc the answer in all cases is "Copyright law 
bestows that right on them".

Copyright deals with ownership. To the extent that copyright 
gets the issues of owenership "right", complaints about 
GPL/copyleft etc are expressions of a desire to steal 
another's property. Tear down copyright law (UN and all) and 
you destry all such schemes. Go to.

> Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke
> screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even 
> less water.

In my mind I'm going to Carolina ... .
What's in an indiovidual's mind carries far less weight than 
copyright law, as you have noted. And it's copyright law 
that you are railing against.


> Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or 
> services and then
> apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the 
> source code and then
> saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you 
> can" is a BIG
> no no.

Nobody argued otherwise.
But, as you argue, copyright law covers "providing all the 
source code" until such time as the owner applies some other 
provision. So it's not obvious how you feel the above 
applies.

> Secondly, if anyone were mad enough

Sticks and stones ;-)

> to try to enforce GPL through
> litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages. 
> Can someone
> please explain to me how the original authors of the 
> software have
> incurred a financial loss because an individual did not 
> respect GPL. I
> mean the original authors are getting zero finiancial 
> compensation for the
> code they have made public so exactly how much are they 
> loesing if someone
> else derives a work from theirs and will not share his 
> source, let me see
> 0 times 1,000,000 - yep still ZERO!!!

I can explain it to you. Whether you understand the 
explanation is up to you.
BUT as you asked for an explanation, and as you will no 
doubt want to rehearse your understandings on this subject 
on subsequent occasions, I'd be much obliged if you'd point 
out any areas in the following that seem to be erroneous.

The misunderstanding is based on a misunderstanding of value 
and ownership. A "miser" / collector / hoarder who owns say 
1000 gold doubloons and gets them out each night and 
examines them / plays with them, but who has no intention of 
ever spending or selling them,  may be said by some to be 
wasting the resource. The coins could be sold and the money 
used otherwise. A logical [from some perspectives] 
conclusion is that other people would be justified to 
liberate / steal said doubloons and "use" them more 
appropriately. / Few would find this argument has very much 
merit. Some would - usually from either extremes of the 
'political'/'social' spectrum ie "He is not making good use 
of the resource but I would" / "The resource should be used 
to benefit all people". Roughly start at raving libertarians 
and raving communists and work back towards the centre until 
the argument stops working for you.

The concept of "value to the owner" is too narrowly defined 
if it has only monetary worth assigned. Which is the problem 
with the above argument. If someone gives up a very high 
paying job to sit on the beach / smell the roses / spend 
time with their family / help the poor / join a religious 
order / ... there will be people who criticise them. Whether 
their motivation is 'what a waste of time' / I feel better 
this way / "God insisted" / ... people who do not own their 
motivation will question or criticise it to a variable 
extent.

Value and worth can come from more than $ made. The 
traditional beautiful sunset / art appreciation (as opposed 
to art $ appreciation) / love of family / the great outdoors 
/ ... is not easily translated to $.

Proceeding from the above:    If a person owns something and 
their preferred recompense is that others get to share it, 
who are you [[apart from being Sergio :-) ]] to deny them 
that right or that assessment of value. If their best 
recompense is gained by having others reciprocate in kind, 
and such a concept is anathema to you, then you are the 
worst possible person to validly proclaim on the merits of 
their choice. If they own something, and wish to share it 
with people who will share what they add to it, then your 
desire to do otherweise is theft of their copyrighted right, 
of their enjoyment, of their preferred recompense. Why 
should a thief be able to say that an owner has no right to 
their property when the UN was set upm (apparently) to 
ensure that they retained this right?

Capitalists proclaim as a core belief that a person has the 
right to the capital that they own - the right to use it, 
grow it, risk it. Or do nothing with it. If they buy a 
building, or a field in order to try to make their capital 
grow. Or join forces with others so that their combined 
capital can (they hope) work more effectively.  Or buy 
capital from others at a rate that both freely agreee to. - 
Who (of the capitalist mind) will disagree? Unless a seed 
fall into the ground ... . Cast your bread upon the waters 
and ... . [Wet bread?]. SO: A world full of ecstatic and 
well served software users is the greatest desire of some. 
Their "capital" is enhanced *in their estimation* by the 
growth of that of others. If they seek to achieve this with 
their capital, what right have you to oppose them? Answer: 
In the capitalist system you every right, as  long as you do 
not violate their rights to use their capital as they see 
fit.

When it comes to recompense for those who steal their 
capital the loss need not be damages per se. It can be the 
visible profit that has been made by those who have stiolen 
their capital and locked it up in a $ deal. By preventing 
those who use their caputal from passing it on or modifying 
it in a way which is profitable by their measures the thief 
has made personal profit. What % of that personal profit 
rightly belongs to the true opwner may be easy enough for a 
court to decide. If,as in in the example given recently, the 
stolen property constitutes 90% of the end product then the 
recompense may be 90% of the profit, before damages.

Does all this sound like utter rubbish to you?
Of course it does.
So perhaps substitute some of your own intangible rights, or 
those of your family or close friends. I could offer some 
suggestions so repugnant as to cause mass indignation while 
makibng my point quite well. But instead, try thinking up 
some of your own. A software product is the brain child of 
its creator. Loved and cherished and brought to fruition. In 
many cases a great labour of love. Find parallels that speak 
to you and then ravish and violate them. Deal with them in 
your mind as others deal with someone's beloved software 
[[ :-) ]] and go from there.

While I think of it, would you please provide me with a link 
to the source code listings and user manuals of any software 
that you have created so that I may see if there is anything 
there that I want to 'improve' and sell at personal profit. 
Please provide PF copyright waivers so I don't have any 
subsequent hassles.



        Russell

* All opinions are wrong. Some opinions are useful.
    :-)
    (Derivative work from copyright (expired) material from 
George Box.)




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist