I really think the fact that Sweden is 30 time smaller than the US is a significant aspect of the problem, which ought to be highlighted a bit more when doing a comparison between these two countries on their energy models.
How hard would it be for the US to implement such solution (assuming the cost would not be as prohibitive as it is compared with nuclear energy), first in a large city like NY (or LA) as a test bed? Maybe something like that already exist in the States?
GP wording was perhaps a bit awkward, but I don't think he meant that modifications had to be released unilaterally: He just indicated the difference between gplv2 and v3 in the situations when the licenses force the release of the modifications (ie. when distributing the program in non source form).
As I said, it all comes from scarcity. Things that are abundant are monetary worthless, and if everything is free, then people don't need to make money, ergo no copyright anymore (there's a slight simplification here actually, because copyrights also grant control, which is actively thought). That said, while the system is mostly used by the richest, poor people can profit from it as well, if they manage to produce valuable IP.
The problem that we really have here imho is that code is just logic written in an often clever way, like a math theorem. Do we want to have these things protected by copyrights or patents? Does it make sense? That's the real question behind the issue at hand I believe.
Because that's the legal side of this. You can compile and run GPL software on your computer without agreeing to the licensing terms, but you may not do it. It is very unlikely that someone will check your HDs for offending uses, and besides, any use of GPLed software assumes an implicit acceptance of its license, so if such a check is happening, you would have to be there to say: "I have it but I am not agreeing to the terms". That sounds a bit silly doesn't it?
That's how the rules have been made, and not complying could be assimilated to piracy.
Property is an inherent human thing. Likewise, people want to be remunerated for their work. Hence copyright. If scarcity was non existent, then we wouldn't have that problem...
Actually, it would still be here: Van Gogh artwork is unique, and this can be expanded virtually to anything, including the shirt you are wearing, since you're the only one to wear it. You might see where this leads to. Scarcity can always be created artificially.
Anyway, you wouldn't want people to take your shirts away from you, and copyright holders may feel the same towards their work.
The second issue is fairness: if someone has to pay a certain amount to access copyrighted work, why others would not have to, under the same circumstances? Fairness is the motivating principle supporting the existence of the Law.
Actually, you have to accept the license as a user to be able to use it. However, you don't give up your right to keep any change for yourself if you don't distribute it in a different format (e.g. binary). Whatever you do in your house is your business. That's probably what you meant (in spirit so to speak), though law wise it is very different.
What chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL.
The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code is not one of the granting processes defined by the GPL.
Therefore, putting the GPL on that code is meaningless, whether it were GPLed initially or not.
Could you please provide a link or two on that, or give some explanation on why this is not possible?