Let me ask you: The exclusive Right in Article I, Section 8
– Is it part of life, liberty or property in the Fifth
Amendment? This is just one example where exclusive Right
is understood not to be part of life, liberty or property.
Another example is the rights that come with Americans with
Disabilities Act. You don’t find these rights in the Fifth
Amendment’s life, liberty or property.
As I said repeatedly, you need to show court ruling that
shows that all rights are found in life, liberty or property.
The fact that you could not produce any court ruling gives
a very strong indication that your position is not correct.
You asked me how a private party can deny rights. As I told
you repeatedly, a party can waive its rights or restrain itself
from exercising rights through agreement. Some laws specifically
disallow any agreement that will restrain or waive some rights.
This is also true for freedoms.
As I said before, it is not necessary to have GPL tested in any
court. We have enough court cases to analyze any license.
Apparently, you did not read the last paragraph in my comment
dated “Oct 28 05 at 4:35 PM.”
You have total freedom to believe and accept Stallman’s Orwellian
definition of “free”. That’s your business. Here, I am defending
the true spirit of freedom by showing how GPL and other so-called
“free” licenses differ from the public domain where freedom truly
is alive.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.
Fifth Amendment focuses on the relationship between the government
and people. The government can’t deprive people of their life,
liberty, or property (let’s be careful with words here, the
word “rights” does not exist in Fifth Amendment).
Nor, for that matter, does the word “government”. Regardless, courts are a branch of the government whose powers are being limited here, and only through courts can license terms be enforced. And no, the mere involvement of a court does not constitute due process.
But what meaning has the word “liberty” in this context if any lawful right can be excluded? Put another way, how can one be prevented from exercising a lawful right without depriving him of liberty?
Moreover, how can a private party deny rights, except by the power of the government? When we talk about “fair use”, we’re talking about the freedom to do certain things without fear of being sued. Certainly a suit can be filed for any reason, but until the government steps in via the courts, no one need fear if the complaint is not one allowed under law. And my contention is that no one whose claim of copyright infringement is barred by the fair use doctrine and the law implementing it has any claim under the GPL. The lack of any court case testing this for over fourteen years does not cast any meaningful doubt on that question; quite the contrary. The range of litigation in this country’s history suggests that if a complaint can be prosecuted, it will.
And back to your very first comment again: the suggestion that Larry Lessig, law professor and specialist in intellectual property law, and a special fan of the GPL in particular, does not “grasp” its fundamental nature is an insult that only suggests a lack of “grasp” on your part. If he is embracing a Communist, or Orwellian, cause, he is doing so with full knowledge; he certainly does not fail to grasp its implications.
But you do Stallman a disservice as well; socialist though his politics clearly are – even Orwellian if you will, considering his support of intrusive government regulation of business and industry – there is no duplicity or deception in his naming this “free” software, because there is no abridgement of anyone’s valid rights either intended or enabled by the GPL.
Nothing you have said has advanced a coherent, logical argument supporting either contention. This and your haughty, dismissive tone could well explain why the Professor has not seen fit to dignify your comments with a response – an example I will now emulate.
]]>best Regards
domain