The original exists, but the modified versions that are now prevalent are works that do not grant me my rights. I have contributed to the arsenal of my adversaries; my works have become part of the works that deny me rights that I consider important, the right to share and remix.
Whereas when copyright is abolished, if I have the song I can copy the song. They cannot put terms on it that would withhold my freedom to do so. I don't really need the GPL anymore; I don't demand anyone's source code, just my freedoms with the knowledge and information that is available to me.
I was under the impression that the GPL forced you to release any modifications under GPL as well. If this is true, doesn't this mean you _don't_ own it?
If I am the author of the GPL'd product you're using, I do not have to purchase your product to compel you to release the source code. I can revoke your right to use the product (including your modifications to it) should you not honor the terms.
In a post-copyright world, how can you force someone to release their modifications to your code? You couldn't argue that they were violating the terms of your copyright, because there is no copyright (in such a hypothetical world)! The GPL depends on copyright law to provide its teeth.
To anybody who possesses a copy. If you distribute the source with the binary, you have absolutely fulfilled your part of the GPL. Strictly speaking, if one does not have a copy of the binary, they're not entitled to the source.
Original authors have natural non revocable ownership of their intellectual work. Now IANAL, but the original author can always - assuming they didn’t sign away all exploitation rights (because that’s all you can give away) - take their ball and walk away.
Anyone is free to continue with the last GPL drop, but from that point on they’re on their own
You do not have the freedom to just take "my" code and do whatever. The moment you include my GPL'd code, you're stepping onto my ground and thus need to abide by some rules I set out for those that do.
You're still free to not use my code, but not to do as you wish if you do, because at that moment you're stepping onto my own freedom.
Not saying they are doing this, but the copyright owner can fork the GPL work and create a closed source version if they want to. The GPL doesn't restrict the copyright owner in any way.
But that argument doesn't really work, since you can upload someone else's GPL'd code on GitHub. So, it's not really possible for a random person uploading old code to GitHub, to give them new rights that the original authors hadn't granted.
Well, if you wrote the code, you own the copyright. You can release it under any license you wish. If other people wrote the code, then they've expressed their wishes through the terms of the GPL (which haven't really changed in the last decade), and those wishes include forbidding additional licensing agreements from being put on top of the GPL (which appears to be the objection in this case).
People would be free to make use of the creative expressions of others, yes, but it would be more like MIT/BSD than GPL. All else equal, anyone would be free to make a modified Linux and publish the compiled binary without being required to publish the source code. What you describe would require not only abolition of copyright law but also a new copyleft law.
Whereas when copyright is abolished, if I have the song I can copy the song. They cannot put terms on it that would withhold my freedom to do so. I don't really need the GPL anymore; I don't demand anyone's source code, just my freedoms with the knowledge and information that is available to me.
reply