Free speech? (Score 1)

[Imagine a GPL on speech. Anytime I refer to a statistic I have created a derivative work which I cannot sell. So long non-fiction. Anytime I quote someone I have a work I can't sell. So long anthologies of quotes. Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write a single thing. I think a GPL on speech would pretty much mean the end of human civilization.] I do not understand how you came to this conclusion. The analogy does not fit. It is simply FUD. It is wrong on so many levels, I feel compelled to reply. Software can be provided in a form in which you can't modify it ie in binary. To modify it you need the source code that was used to create the binary. The gpl does not prohibit you from selling anything that has been gpled. You can modify something that has been gpled and then sell it as long as you give the people you sell it to the right to do the same. Speech on the other hand doesn't suffer from this problem. If some one says something, you can say it too. It doesn't fit written works either. Written works already come under copyright, which is much more restrictive than the gpl. If someone writes a book, you cannot take that book, add a few words and then sell it. If a book was not copyrighted but instead gpled, then that would allow somebody to take the book change it in anyway they see fit and then sell it as long as they give the people they sell it to the same rights.