The drifted SCO thread has opened a new arena. "IS there a place for a de facto IP freedom realm"

[Bradley Hook]

Billy Crook wrote:
> You can't have complete control of your work unless it is completely
> your own property.
> 
> For a work to be completely your own property, you must have uniquely
> created 100% of that work.  This is usually not the case.

Not quite. A work can still be completely your own property, if and only 
if the "work" is the *unique* way in which you combine or modify other 
component works. Even the original author of the work cannot use your 
*unique* reworking of their original without violating your rights.

This creates a sort of gridlock, because if the original author and the 
owner of the derivative work cannot come to a compromise of their 
rights, then *neither* can propagate the derivative work.

For a visual illustration, see the attached GIF.

If the creator of a work makes no exceptions to the default rights 
granted by copyright law, then no one can redistribute a derivative work 
(fair use aside).

If the creator of a work puts the work in the public domain, then anyone 
can redistribute the work or a derivative work, regardless of the terms 
of redistribution or the later wishes of the original creator.

I think the original point of this thread was to discuss the fact that 
there are no simple "in between" options for either the original creator 
or the creator of a derivative work. The only means available at present 
is to reserve all of the rights permissible by copyright, and then 
license out the permissions you desire by way of complex IP contracts 
(read: GPL).

While I find the idea of an "in between" option, without 
contracts/licenses, to be intriguing, I don't think it would work in 
practice. We already have enough clashes between different copyright and 
public domain laws in different countries. To add another classification 
to the mix, and expect it to be in anyway universal, would be asking for 
trouble. On top of that, as we can see with the diversity of licenses 
available, it would be hard to come to a consensus.

With the large number of established licenses available, it is not too 
difficult to release your work to the public while prohibiting 
commercial redistribution. For example, the CreativeCommons provides a 
license for such uses.

Lastly, one fault of the argument presented in the original message is 
the ambiguity of the term "profit". The whole concept of open source 
involves many people contributing, and therefore everyone profiting. A 
profit is simply a gain of value, it doesn't necessarily have to be 
monetary.

~Bradley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: example-derived-works.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 27592 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20070927/2313f7a1/attachment-0001.gif