|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
4108 days ago
|
|
|
> It's possible but it's not logical!
If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. No, if one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that it is legal for any particular author to wield that power within those bounds. That doesn't mean you have to support every particular choice about how it is wielded, just as one's support for the freedom of speech from government censorship doesn't mean one supports every utterance that is outside the scope of what government may prohibit given that freedom. If one's support for the government policy is on a utilitarian basis (as one example of a framework of support that might apply), one can support the government policy while opposing an action it allows simply because one believes any policy which would effectively constrain the action which one does not prefer would have other harms which outweigh the benefits of preventing the action at issue. |
|
|
I never wrote you have to support how it's wielded but that it is wielded. Your freedom of speech analogy doesn't apply to what I wrote.
I agree with your last point, but I think that's exactly the job of lawmakers. Once you've found an abuse of the law, you refine the law. You don't just throw your hands up and say "well the pros outweigh the cons." Legislation isn't futile. In this specific case, copyright law has only grown more powerful without any significant negative feedback.
All I'm saying is, if you feel there is something wrong with the GPL, well it's not the only instance of copyright abuse and maybe you should focus on copyright law itself, not the GPL.