Copyleft - A stupid term?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Gordy, Feb 11, 2007.

  1. Gordy

    Gordy Guest

    I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    give up their protection by Copyright.

    Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?

    Cheers

    Gordy
    Gordy, Feb 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gordy

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 12, 11:29 am, Gordy <> wrote:
    > I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    > give up their protection by Copyright.
    >
    > Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?
    >

    No, because software covered by the GNU General Public Licence is not
    totally free in the public domain.

    Moreover the open source community like to come up with zany names and
    acronyms.

    For example the open source version of PGP ('pretty good privacy'
    cypher system) is called GPG (Gnu Privacy Guard).

    I will leave it to you to Google 'gnu'.
    peterwn, Feb 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Gordy <> wrote:
    >
    >I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    >give up their protection by Copyright.
    >
    >Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?


    Suggest you actually read the copy notice and spot the obvious difference
    beore commenting. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Feb 12, 2007
    #3
  4. On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:24 +1300, Gordy wrote:

    > I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    > give up their protection by Copyright.
    >
    > Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?


    No.

    Because with Copyleft the copyright holder does retain full rights to the
    material being copylefted. It's just that the copyleft holder is granting
    the right to use or to copy provided certain conditions are met. For
    example, the GPL is a copyleft licence.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
    Dianthus Mimulus, Feb 12, 2007
    #4
  5. On 12 Feb 2007 18:27:19 +1300, Dianthus Mimulus <>
    wrote in <news:>:

    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:24 +1300, Gordy wrote:
    >
    >> I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    >> give up their protection by Copyright.
    >>
    >> Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > Because with Copyleft the copyright holder does retain full rights to the
    > material being copylefted. It's just that the copyleft holder is granting
    > the right to use or to copy provided certain conditions are met. For
    > example, the GPL is a copyleft licence.


    I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    and of themselves. I should be delighted to be proven wrong by a legal
    cite valid in this country.

    --
    Regards,
    Nicolaas.


    .... Home is where the 127.0.0.1 is.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 12, 2007
    #5
  6. Gordy

    Earl Grey Guest

    On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:58:12 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    >
    > I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    > completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    > and of themselves. I should be delighted to be proven wrong by a legal
    > cite valid in this country.


    The copyright is as valid as any other copyright agreement under the Berne
    Convention.
    Earl Grey, Feb 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Gordy

    jasen Guest

    On 2007-02-11, Gordy <> wrote:
    >
    > I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    > give up their protection by Copyright.


    I've never seen that. Usually by copyleft a specific sort of copyright is
    implied.

    > Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?


    do you mean public domain?


    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
    jasen, Feb 12, 2007
    #7
  8. On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:06:00 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    <news:p>:

    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:58:12 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    >> completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    >> and of themselves. I should be delighted to be proven wrong by a legal
    >> cite valid in this country.

    >
    > The copyright is as valid as any other copyright agreement under the Berne
    > Convention.


    We are not discussing "copyright." here.

    --
    Nicolaas
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Gordy

    Earl Grey Guest

    On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:06:00 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    > <news:p>:
    >
    >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:58:12 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    >>> completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    >>> and of themselves. I should be delighted to be proven wrong by a legal
    >>> cite valid in this country.

    >>
    >> The copyright is as valid as any other copyright agreement under the Berne
    >> Convention.

    >
    > We are not discussing "copyright." here.


    Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    to standard copyright conditions
    Earl Grey, Feb 12, 2007
    #9
  10. On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:58:12 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    > I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    > completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    > and of themselves.


    Why?

    The GPL has been tested several times overseas - including in countries
    such as the USA where they have particularly draconian copyright laws
    - and has prevailed utterly unscathed.

    And yet the GPL is a copyleft license.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
    Dianthus Mimulus, Feb 12, 2007
    #10
  11. On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:28:04 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    <news:p>:

    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:06:00 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    >> <news:p>:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:58:12 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    >>>> completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    >>>> and of themselves. I should be delighted to be proven wrong by a legal
    >>>> cite valid in this country.
    >>>
    >>> The copyright is as valid as any other copyright agreement under the Berne
    >>> Convention.

    >>
    >> We are not discussing "copyright." here.

    >
    > Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    > conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    > to standard copyright conditions


    "Licence", "Conditional", "Agreement".... as I have been saying, not
    enforceable in court - except (as a remote likelihood) in tort.

    --
    Nicolaas
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 12, 2007
    #11
  12. Gordy

    Gordy Guest

    On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:24 +1300, Gordy <> wrote:

    >
    >I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    >give up their protection by Copyright.
    >
    >Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?
    >
    >Cheers
    >
    >Gordy
    >


    Some interesting stuff being discussed...

    My arguement was more one of semantics.

    Right verus Left.
    Of Right versus Of ?????

    As has been mentioned earlier, the GNU community comes up with some
    zany words.

    CopyLeft seems to be well defined from a quick Google search I did.

    I guess like a lot of other words that appear (turn up) in the English
    language they become adopted as a norm by usage and time.


    Gordy
    Gordy, Feb 12, 2007
    #12
  13. Gordy

    Earl Grey Guest

    On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:55:50 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:28:04 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    > <news:p>:
    >
    >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:06:00 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    >>> <news:p>:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:58:12 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I should expect that the "copyleft" terms and conditions would be
    >>>>> completely unenforceable in court as they would have no legal standing in
    >>>>> and of themselves. I should be delighted to be proven wrong by a legal
    >>>>> cite valid in this country.
    >>>>
    >>>> The copyright is as valid as any other copyright agreement under the Berne
    >>>> Convention.
    >>>
    >>> We are not discussing "copyright." here.

    >>
    >> Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    >> conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    >> to standard copyright conditions

    >
    > "Licence", "Conditional", "Agreement".... as I have been saying, not
    > enforceable in court - except (as a remote likelihood) in tort.


    The same as any licence, it protects against the source code being
    copyrighted by anyone else, so its effective without the need for
    enforcement.

    It has been enforced in court though.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl#GPL-related_disputes

    And just like other copyright disputes, most infringements are resolved
    privately.
    Earl Grey, Feb 12, 2007
    #13
  14. On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:55:50 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    >> Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    >> conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    >> to standard copyright conditions

    >
    > "Licence", "Conditional", "Agreement".... as I have been saying, not
    > enforceable in court - except (as a remote likelihood) in tort.


    Actually, it is enforceable. It has been enforced. And more than a few
    corporations have been forced back into line by the copyleft holders.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
    Dianthus Mimulus, Feb 12, 2007
    #14
  15. On 12 Feb 2007 22:50:49 +1300, Dianthus Mimulus <>
    wrote in <news:>:

    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:55:50 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >>> Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    >>> conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    >>> to standard copyright conditions

    >>
    >> "Licence", "Conditional", "Agreement".... as I have been saying, not
    >> enforceable in court - except (as a remote likelihood) in tort.

    >
    > Actually, it is enforceable. It has been enforced. And more than a few
    > corporations have been forced back into line by the copyleft holders.


    Cites of criminal proceedings, please?

    --
    Regards,
    Nicolaas.


    .... Ask not the Usenet for counsel, for they will answer 'yes' and 'no'
    and 'read the FAQ'
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 12, 2007
    #15
  16. Gordy

    Earl Grey Guest

    On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:57:38 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    > On 12 Feb 2007 22:50:49 +1300, Dianthus Mimulus <>
    > wrote in <news:>:
    >
    >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:55:50 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    >>>> conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    >>>> to standard copyright conditions
    >>>
    >>> "Licence", "Conditional", "Agreement".... as I have been saying, not
    >>> enforceable in court - except (as a remote likelihood) in tort.

    >>
    >> Actually, it is enforceable. It has been enforced. And more than a few
    >> corporations have been forced back into line by the copyleft holders.

    >
    > Cites of criminal proceedings, please?


    Copyright isn't criminal law.
    Earl Grey, Feb 12, 2007
    #16
  17. Gordy

    Don Stokes Guest

    In article <>, Earl Grey <> wrote:
    >Copyright isn't criminal law.


    Actually, at least under the NZ Copyright Act, profiting heavily from
    breach of copyright is a criminal offence. See the Act for more details.

    -- don
    Don Stokes, Feb 12, 2007
    #17
  18. On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:25:24 +1300, Earl Grey <> wrote in
    <news:p>:

    > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:57:38 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >> On 12 Feb 2007 22:50:49 +1300, Dianthus Mimulus <>
    >> wrote in <news:>:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:55:50 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Yes we are, the rights conferred under the copyleft licences are
    >>>>> conditional, if you don't comply with the conditions the agreement reverts
    >>>>> to standard copyright conditions
    >>>>
    >>>> "Licence", "Conditional", "Agreement".... as I have been saying, not
    >>>> enforceable in court - except (as a remote likelihood) in tort.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, it is enforceable. It has been enforced. And more than a few
    >>> corporations have been forced back into line by the copyleft holders.

    >>
    >> Cites of criminal proceedings, please?

    >
    > Copyright isn't criminal law.


    PRECISELY!

    --
    Regards,
    Nicolaas.


    .... Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
    massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source
    of mind-boggling amounts of shit when you least expect it.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 12, 2007
    #18
  19. Gordy

    Earl Grey Guest

    On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:45:30 +1300, Don Stokes wrote:

    > In article <>, Earl Grey <> wrote:
    >>Copyright isn't criminal law.

    >
    > Actually, at least under the NZ Copyright Act, profiting heavily from
    > breach of copyright is a criminal offence. See the Act for more details.
    >
    > -- don


    Thats an exception, reserved for cases of bulk counterfeiting, not
    failures to publish source code when distributing a GPL binary.
    its still civil law, and copyright dealings are contractual agreements.
    Earl Grey, Feb 12, 2007
    #19
  20. Gordy

    Don Stokes Guest

    In article <>,
    Gordy <> wrote:
    >I see some computer software gurus using the term Copyleft where they
    >give up their protection by Copyright.
    >
    >Wouldn't Copyfree be a more suitable term?


    "Copyleft" is just a nickname for the Gnu General Public License or
    similar types of license, or the application of same. "Copyright" on
    the other hand is a legal term for the right of authors to control the
    use of their work.

    The use of the term "Copyleft", or the application of such licenses does
    not in any way diminish the copyright status of a piece of work. It's
    not the same as placing work into the public domain, where the copyright
    is quite explicitly given up.

    For example, if I distribute a piece of software under GPL, I can still
    sell that same software (or more likely, a derived work) under a different
    license for money, or without source or whatever, because I haven't
    given up the copyright. In either case, the license under which the
    software was provided is legally enforceable.

    You can call GPLed code "Copyfree" if you like, just don't expect anyone
    else to understand what you're on about.

    -- don
    Don Stokes, Feb 12, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kpg

    stupid stupid stupid

    kpg, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    824
    T-Bone
    Nov 26, 2004
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    754
  3. Michael P Gabriel

    Stupid is as Stupid Does!

    Michael P Gabriel, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    382
    stewy
    Jun 26, 2004
  4. john
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    641
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Copyright & Copyleft

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 28, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    777
    impossible
    Aug 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page