Updates
I'm afraid getting my campaign contribution system fully set up is taking longer than expected, due to some inconsistencies in procedure between branches of my bank. I did promise to put all donation information in a publicly visible location on the site, though, this blog will do for now until I get everything set up. I'd like to thank Joe Loveland for his donation of $10. I'll let you all know how the money is spent once all the paperwork is in place for that to be possible.
I read back through my issues section recently, and realized that I really didn't care for my own gun control position! More accurately, what I said did not properly convey what I actually believed, and could easily give people the wrong impression. The revised version may be found here.
I read back through my issues section recently, and realized that I really didn't care for my own gun control position! More accurately, what I said did not properly convey what I actually believed, and could easily give people the wrong impression. The revised version may be found here.
posted by Stephen Collings at
12:47 PM
2 Comments:
Dear Stephen,
I cannot find any contact information for you at all online. Only this closed wall facebook service that has unfairly kicked me off.
I see that you are listed as a candidate: http://www.pirate-party.us/content/candidates
http://www.collings2010.com/index.php?page=issues#5
: For software, the maximum term should be between ten and twenty years, with books and music conceivably having longer terms of 40-50 years.
Now How do you see the linux system and gnu compiler to be protected under this scheme? Please explain how they will benefit from copyright expiry?
Please open up your communication to some open standards and do not force me to be censored by some silly facebook admins.
thanks,
James Micahel DuPont
Mike,
I just noticed your comment, sorry for being a couple weeks in replying. First, I'd like to address your problems with contacting me. At the bottom of each page of my campaign site at www.collings2010.com is a link labeled "Contact Us", which is a mailto link to my campaign's e-mail address. I hope that makes getting hold of me with questions in the future easier.
Now, to address your question regarding GNU, Linux, and other open-source software. My guess is that you're specifically concerned about the fact that when copyright on that software expires, the protections of the GPL, LGPL, and other licenses encouraging open-source collaboration will also expire. You are correct in this regard. As things stand, someone can not make a commercially distributed version of GPL'd software without providing the source code to all recipients of the binary. When the copyright expires, this limitation will no longer exist, and people will be able to make modified commercial distributions of older code without limitation.
There is an inevitable conflict here. Software licenses only function so long as copyright is eternal. The question is one of which is better: a shorter copyright term, or an eternal GPL.
I have difficulty imagining any negative scenarios involving GPL'd software entering public domain. Is the objection to the possibility of someone now being able to make modifications to the source for commercial purposes without sharing them with the community at large? If so, I would respond that there are two possible versions of such a scenario.
One is that the modification made would have been useful to the community to which it has been denied. However, by the time this scenario could occur the code must have been been publicly available for ten to twenty years. I would suggest that in those circumstances the community has been given plenty of time to make such modifications. If a beneficial modification could be made to the code, but was not made while the code was under GPL, I would consider it a good thing that someone else be given an incentive to make it. An unshared modification that some party benefits from is preferable to no modification ever being made, which benefits no one at all.
In the second case, the modification made would not have been useful to the community to which it has been denied. In that case, for older code I also see no damage.
While I am a strong supporter of open-source projects, I do not hold that open-source is inherently superior to closed-source for all purposes. The limited damage that might be caused by older versions of long-running open-source programs entering public domain is vastly outweighed by the benefits of thousands of older commercial programs entering public domain.
I am, as always, open to discussion or correction in this matter. If any of my facts or understandings are incorrect, or if you have any other concerns that I haven't addressed, I would love to hear from you about them.
Thanks again for your comment.
-Stephen Collings
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home