SCO vs. The GPL

Lawrence Lessig gives his opinion on SCO's specious arguments against GPL'd software. An excerpt:

This is the most interesting (and silly) claim made in the whole of McBride's piece. There is absolutely no authority in any Supreme Court case anywhere to say that a copyright owner must sell his copyrighted material. If JD Salinger writes a novel that he doesn't want to be published, copyright law gives him the right to put the novel in a drawer, and never sell it at all. Indeed, the law would punish anyone who stole the book and published it without his permission -- even if the "motive" of the thief was "profit."

This again follows from the nature of a property right -- it is the right of the owner to decide what to do with his resources. Does Bill Gates violate the constitution when, instead of devoting $20b of his own money to making more "profit," he decides instead to use the money to save millions of lives in Africa?

It is therefore perfectly permissible for the owner of a copyright to do nothing with it. And it would be perfectly permissible for the owner of a copyright to give it away -- to dedicate it to the public domain. (And if you'd like to do that, Creative Commons will help). But again, GPL'd software is not dedicated to the public domain.

This article is must reading. It will be on the bluebook exam at the end of the semester.

File under Geek Talk.

7:32:12 PM    Go ahead, make my day  []  trackback []  

And Now, Your Moment Of Zen

File under Zen.

12:09:47 AM    Go ahead, make my day  []  trackback []