From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:00:37 +0900 Message-ID: <87k5e3gih6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ljytkwpk.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <878wusz0v9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vdxp27z6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87prnxe5hc.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <873aktck5d.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k5e5dsvq.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <48B2E7B1.2000502@emf.net> <87r68ch0x3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87od3gm482.fsf@rattlesnake.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219813251 5745 80.91.229.12 (27 Aug 2008 05:00:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: bob@rattlesnake.com (Robert J. Chassell) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 27 07:01:45 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KYDA8-0007ac-P2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:01:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40016 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYD9A-0001FM-Lf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:00:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYD8q-0001Bp-L3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:00:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYD8o-0001BK-OQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:00:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48200 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYD8o-0001BC-Fc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:00:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:56724) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYD8n-00035Z-NM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:00:22 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB801535A8; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:59:58 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D37A1A2D7C; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:00:37 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <87od3gm482.fsf@rattlesnake.com> X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:103007 Archived-At: Robert J. Chassell writes: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" , are you saying that > copyright law does not have to do with copying between people? Since I have no clue what you might mean by "copying between people", no, I'm not saying any such thing. In the U.S., and I believe similarly for other jurisdictions, copyright law regulates not only copying but distribution, performance, and other such social activity. Nevertheless, a specific agent (the copyer or distributor) is identified as being restricted, and IANAL but AFAIK receiving an illegal copy in good faith is not a crime nor are you liable for civil damages (of course, you must give up the copy on request of the rights holder). > "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote, which I disagreed > with with respect to the actual practice of law >> Freedom *means* that you may do something without concern for >> interference from your government or your neighbors. ... Er, when did you mention the "actual practice of law"? I seem to have missed it. > The question is whether software copying studying, modifying, and > redistributing over the next generation will remain as legal or illegal > as it has in the past generation. Um, no, my question was "what does 'communitarian freedom' mean?" and you still have made no visible attempt to answer it. As for this new question you've introduced, none of those *acts* are legal or illegal as such, so you seem a bit confused as to the actual practice of law. Rather, the right to perform those acts is reserved to "owners", and they are by that token prohibited by law for others until permission is granted.[1] So what you are now asking is "will we expropriate existing exclusive rights, and stop issuing them in the future", I guess? I certainly hope we don't expropriate them entirely, although I would like to see the retroactive term extensions reversed as unconstitutional[2], and future grants dramatically reduced or even eliminated. By the way, although studying software is specified among the four freedoms, it was never made illegal by copyright law, until the DMCA, and there only a very restricted subset of software is illegal to study. It's just impossible to study it if you don't get a copy, and acceptance of a EULA binding you not to study it is often a condition required to acquire a copy. But that is governed by contract law, not copyright law. Footnotes: [1] However, for nearly all software applications I wish to use, versions are available for which copying, modifying, and redistributing are perpetually legal under copyright law because they are covered by free software licenses. My belief, and I suspect Tom's is similar, is that the best way to extend that region of freedom is to write more excellent software and distribute it under free licenses. Removing features from software is neither helpful to that cause, nor is it likely to slow the growth of the non-free region. [2] My theory is that the Constitution explicitly says that these franchises are intended "to encourage the useful arts", but any putative encouragement must have happened before the original grant of franchise---retroactive extensions are expropriating the public, pure and simple, to no conceivable good (except the profit of owners).