[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Huaiyu Zhu]

Greg Ewing <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Julian Tibble wrote:
>> 
>> erm... If there is no copyright then there is no *need* for copyleft.
>
>But if RMS would be happy with a world in which there
>was simply no copyright, he wouldn't bother with the
>GPL -- he could get the same effect just by putting
>all the stuff he writes in the public domain.

In a noncopyright world, everything and their derivatives are in public
domain, forever.  In a copyright world, public domain is only for a specific
version.

GPL essentially says: You can treat this stuff as public domain as long as
you guarantee, as far as in your capacity, that all derived versions are
also in public domain.

GPL is an attempt to simulate a noncopyright world within the legal
confinement of a copyright world.  It is a better simulation than releasing
into public domain.

>The fact that he hasn't done that means he
>*does* want *some* kind of intellectual property
>laws.

You cannot logically conclude that RMS wants copyright.  

However, your conclusion is correct by a silly accident - RMS supports
trademarks, which could be classified as *some* IP.  This just shows the
fallacy of lumping all kinds of IP together.

Huaiyu