Ownership in Software

Axel Schulz axel at schulz.ph
Thu Apr 22 17:08:34 UTC 2004


authorship != ownership, authors != owners

You consider it this way. Many people here consider it this way. 
I do not. My justification is that only authorship in software is insufficient because of the dual nature of software (-> the ACM artilce I quoted). 

So, for me  "authorship != ownership" is not true when it comes to software. Authorship is not made for software, but applied to software it becomes ownership. This is sufficient. Because than we do not nee patents and stuf like this. Copyrights protects software and everyone can choose which license her software shall have.

This guarantees the maximum of freedom for all, doesn't it?

Stallman talks about owners (-> have a look at my very first email). And he claims that software should not have owners. If you see my line of argument, you should also see why I claim that Stallman went to far. 

Do you see my point?

best regards,


simo.sorce at xsec.it schrieb am 22.04.04 18:46:49:
> On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 18:27, Axel Schulz wrote:
> > The GPL is a very smart solution. It restricts also the "taker" of the license but it does something very good to society. But this software has an author. That is way I hold that Stallman is a little mistaken.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> Never heard that stallman said software should not have authors (from
> which derive authorship).
> Can you show me where Stallman states that software should have no
> authors please? Can you give me any pointer?
> authorship != ownership, authors != owners
> Simo.
> -- 
> Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
> Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
> via Garofalo, 39 - 20133 - Milano
> mobile: +39 329 328 7702
> tel. +39 02 2953 4143 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399

More information about the Discussion mailing list