[copyleft-next] Update 2012-08-25

Ben Cotton bcotton at funnelfiasco.com
Sun Aug 26 18:57:17 UTC 2012


On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> wrote:

> Nope.  You can't copyright ideas, only the expression of an idea.  You
> can patent ideas and designs (ignoring issues of whether you should be
> able to patent software algorithms or rounded corners) but that's a
> different kettle of fish.
>
> That is, if you have a computer in one cubicle, and read
> the source code there, internalize the idea and concepts, and then
> wander over to the next cubicle, and code up the same algorithm,
> you're probably safe from a copyright claim.
>
Sure, but that's not what's happening here. It's not like
copyleft-next sprung from Richard reading GPLv3 and deciding to write
a new license from a blank page. In this case, there's a clear
progression from GPLv3 to copyleft-next, commit-by-commit. Like I
said, I don't think that copyleft-next is in violation of any laws,
morals, or ethics in the way it has developed (if I did, I would be
wrong), I'm simply arguing that it is still a derivative work. It's an
entirely semantic argument, and I'm not sure it has much bearing on
anything.

> One of the things which is really scary to me is how few developers
> don't seem to understand basic copyright principles.
>
I wholly agree that there's a broad ignorance of copyright and
licensing issues among people who should really know better (I count
myself in that category, though I hope I'm slightly less ignorant than
the mean). That's part of what makes this project particularly
attractive to me: reading the commit messages, especially in the early
stages, has been a terrific education in the history and intricacies
of copyleft. The question is "how do we educate the community?"


-- 
Ben Cotton


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list