Old Al's Snippets

Let me state right at the outset that I am not a lawyer, and that I have a dismally limited knowledge of the law. I do maintain, however, that in a democracy citizens have the right, indeed a responsibility, to have opinions, and express their opinions about the laws that affect their rights. We do not live in an autocratic society, where Big Brother dictates what we are allowed to think and say.
We all know copyright. It is a legal protection for authors, right? Well, not quite. Wise heads have decided that copyright applies to software. At first sight, that does appear reasonable. But is it, really? Let us compare the use of books and of software.
The copyright of books has been in wide use ever since Mr. Gutenberg invented printing and since the law makers decided to stop others, than the publishers of the first version of a book, to make additional copies. Also, copyright prevents significant chunks of a printed work to be copied word-by-word without the copyright holder's permission. It was never intended to prevent the thoughts, expressed in a copyright protected publication, to be absorbed and used by the readers of that publication. OK, we accept these restrictions of copyright without much loss of sleep. But are books and their use the same as software? If they are not similar, is it reasonable to have the same restrictions on their use?
When I buy a book, I can read it, I can lend it to a friend or friends to read it. After I get tired of it, I can sell it at some price. I can also use a book not only as a decoration on an empty shelf, but also as a weight to keep the paper sheets on my table straight. In a word, a book is a physical object and can be used as such. Sure, I am not allowed to reprint it, nor parts of it, but that is the only major limitation imposed by copyright on my use of a book.
But software is different. It is not really a physical object, though undoubtedly it is carried by a physical medium, such as a floppy or a CD. If the software is proprietary and subject to copyright, I am not allowed to lend it to a friend - that is not legal. Though one pays for the proprietary software, there are severe restrictions on its use. Sometimes its use is restricted to one computer only. Is that reasonable? I don't think so. In fact, when proprietary software encroaches on my freedom to such an extent, I refuse to buy it - and to use it.
And that is where GNU GPL (General Public Licence, http://www.pcug.org.au/oss/ user=pcug, pwd=member and look for a link to GNU GP Licence) and Open Source Software (OSS) comes in. If there is a choice between OSS and proprietary software, other things being equal, I would choose OSS any time.
Wouldn't you?

Old Al's Snippets

Software Copyright