[OT] - does IP exist?

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:21:16AM +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:
> 2) one would have to define reproduction, especially sexual 
> reproduction, to be copying

Reproduction is copying:

From:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Areproduction&btnG=Google+Search

Definitions of reproduction on the Web:
 * the act of making copies; "Gutenberg's reproduction of holy texts was far more efficient" 
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(See the original link for a full list of other definitions, this is only one.)

> 3) if 2) has been done, then the first child has the legal right to 
> force his parents to have no more childs or---that its parents have had 
> no right to copy it to what it is now, especially if the child is 
> somehow disabled 

This doesn't follow. The children are derivative works of their parents,
not the other way around.

Imagine if I took a software library,  modified it, and released it under
my own license. Good so far (original license permitting, of course).

Then I tried to force the original library to also be released under my
license. I can't do that. The best I can do is try to talk its authors
into re-releasing it under my license; I cannot force them to do so.

If forcing the original's license to be changed to match a derivative work
was possible, we wouldn't be having this conversation - this thread would
never have been created!


Now, imagine that software's original license dictated the terms of the
licensing of derivative works, like the GNU GPL or most software product
licenses do. If I tried to release my modification under anything other than
a permitted license, they could sue me for copyright infringement.

Why can they sue me and I can't sue them? Simple - they were there first, so
the law gives them the power.

Same with parents and children in this scenario. The parents were there first,
so they would be the ones with the legal power over their children.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net