From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 1993 02:03:29 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <MIB.93Jan7152945@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
>mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>MZ:
>>>You haven't read the GPL.  The FSF legally owns all code licensed under
>>>the GPL, under *any* reasonable definition of intellectual property.  
>
>MIB:
>>This is false, and it's important that people recognize it.
>
>This is known as an _exordium_, and it is important that people
>realize that it does not constitute a refutation.

Here's the reason for your confusion, Michael.  You've read the part
of the GPL that says

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

and think that that is logically part of the GPL.  If you read, on
the other hand, the copyright on Ghostscript or some other program
that has not been legally assigned to the FSF, you'll see that there
is nothing in the text assigning ownership to FSF.

The rest of your argument falls apart because you seem to be under
the impression that I slap the GPL onto my work, I have taken rights
away from myself.  I have not.  As the owner of the work, I can make
another copy with a different copyright agreement attached.

>Surely you must be joking.  If the GPL only applies to *that* particular
>copy, what is there to prevent me, a bemused bystander, from making a
>duplicate and releasing it on my own terms, against the ostensible
>provisions of the selfsame GPL?  In my circles, this is known as a
>_reductio ad absurdum_.

It is your argument that is absurd, not Michael's.  The distinction
is that the bemused bystander is not the owner of the work.  The
*owner* may make copies under whatever condition he or she pleases.
Perhaps you are confused because you seem to think that GPL'ing a
work assigns ownership to the FSF.  This is not true; the FSF encourages
programmers to assign ownership of programs to them, but not all GPL'ed
programs have their ownership so assigned.  You must execute a separate
legal document to assign ownership of your work to the FSF.

As a bystander, you may only make copies if the owner has granted
you permission.  If you have a copy with a copyright notice granting
you permission, you may do so.  If you do not, you may not.

The rest of your argument arises from mistaken assumptions.  Here's
the deal.  If it's my work, only I have the right to make copies.
The reason the GPL can mandate copying conditions is because it is
granting additional rights beyond the default rights: by default,
you may not copy Gnu software at all.  But the GPL grants you permission
to make copies provided that certain rules are followed.

The owner of a copyrighted work is free to produce two copies, one with
the GPL and one without, precisely because he or she is the owner.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc