They only need to release the source code to the organizations they release the compiled code to. Just because Obama'12 gives their binaries (and source) to Clinton'16, doesn't mean they have to give their binaries to _everyone_.
Not quite. GPL relies on copyright. The only thing it changes is it requires you to release the source code to anyone who you release the program to. But you can still, by license, restrict who they can give the program (and therefore, the source code) to.
"There is a conservative consensus that our copyright law is ineffective. We can quibble on how to fix it, and that's important, but some of the parameters of the problem are very apparent to almost all conservatives with familiarity on the subject."
And I would say the exact same words, only with s/conservative/liberal/. Or better yet, s/conservative//. The only people opposed are the ones who continue to make gobs of money by having twisted the system to their own benefit, and those who lack familiarity with the subject.
Democrat Al Franken? Great guy, super-liberal dude, I love him. But all his former (pre-congress) coworkers and employers in the entertainment business (as well as his own royalty checks) have him decidedly on the wrong side of this.
Republican Daryl Issa? Total 180 from Franken, on every issue (well, except a carbon tax) so copyright is basically the only think I agree with Issa on.
Meanwhile? Democrat Ron Wyden has been the #1 guy on the right side of this. But outside this issue, him and Franken are almost a perfect match.
This is completely outside of conservative/liberal (or at least of Republican/Democrat, which is what matters.) Which makes me very pessimistic for the future.
I know this is meant to be a joke, and that I'm about to ruin it but:
A PLS works by taking a portion of the interest that would be paid to all savers, siphoning it off, and giving it all to one winner. But the government already has a way to siphon off everyone else's savings: create inflation. Which, arguably, it should be doing now anyway, so I guess you're right after all.
I've voted straight Democrat in the last 4 elections ('06, '08, '10, and '12) and the last Republican I voted for was Arlen Specter... who changed parties to the Democrats.
But I'd consider voting for a Republican again if this became part of the platform. (And if they shift way left on abortion, gay rights, immigration, unions, budgets... heck, this and 3 out of 5 of those.)
One problem: The 12 year term length, while I love it, is currently constrained by the Berne Convention, which requires "life + 50". But we could absolutely drop down to that from our current "life + 70". (And I'm fuzzy on the details, but I think we could drop works-for-hire down to a flat 50?)
Sometimes, knowing history will help you to repeat it.
In 1852, both parties sucked badly on the #1 civil liberties issue of the day, slavery. The difference then, was it was the #1 issue, period, of the day. Factions in both parties, the Whigs and the Democrats, had strong, vocal supporters, and both parties had bitter internal arguments on the issue. That year, the Whigs cracked and began to disband. By 1856, a new party, founded on this one issue, had risen; the Republicans.
Anti-slavery Democrats fled their party to join the Republicans; pro-slavery former-Whigs muddle about but eventually ended up as Democrats (because it's a two party system, so what else can you do?)
The honorably goal of journalism is to protect the powerless; to, as they say, "speak truth to power".
That's the big difference between, say, outing anonymous political dissidents living under an oppressive regime, and, for example, outing a teacher who takes sexually suggestive pictures of his students. The difference is who has the power.