The Intellectual property is the most valuable asset for any organisation, individual and business and it is very important to know that the holder of it takes all preventative measures for its protection. Copyright is one of the other types of Intellectual Properties which a business can own. This right provides the owner an absolute right of the copyright material to republish, reproduce, copy, reuse and republish it.

Nonetheless, there is a school of thought which pursues to supersede copyright and allow anyone to change, alter and modify specific pieces of work and this type of licensing is called as copyleft and is usually used in connection to software development. In this research article we will explore and study the nature and meaning of both copyright and copyleft and further explain how they can affect the protection of intellectual property.

As we all know that a copyright is a right legally available to everyone and is conferred upon the creators of original works to command how that work can/ cannot be modified, copied and distributed by others. If anyone uses or distributes an original work in a way which is conflicting to what the creator permits, he has every right to seek legal action against that particular person. Copyleft licenses exist within the broad legal framework of copyrights. Copylefts are not about annulment or abolition of the copyright instead it aims to provide freedom to the users for their work without any barrier.

Unlike permissive license, the copyleft licence does not allow users to enjoy absolute freedom in respect of the copyright material. It still restricts the users in some or the other way. The most prominent aspect of copyleft licenses is that they need user to distribute unoriginal/copied work under a license that offers the same rights as the original work. These copyleft licenses require the user to distribute their copied work under a license which provides same rights for both original and copied work.

For example, when a painter provides a softcopy of the copyleft photo to the user, the user has the right to download, modify and distribute such copy in every manner that he wishes to. The user would also be required to provide such rights of the distribution and modification to the ones he is providing the work.

This is termed a share-alike clause. This is the reason for the copyleft licenses to not be same as the public domain and for the same reason BSD and MIT licenses do not count as copyleft licenses in the world of software. The term Public domain means that:
Nobody owns rights to a particular work and anybody is free to do whatever they want with it.

The person is well within the rights to take an image which is available in public domain, download it, modify it and further sell it with his own restrictive license. A person can do the same with the MIT-licensed source code. Copyleft is not just about providing freedom but also about gaining the same. Such licenses make sure that copyleft freedom remains even in unoriginal work also.[1]

Position of Software under the current Copyright Regime
The software is currently protected as subject matter of copyright. Art.4[2] of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996 states:
Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention[3]. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.

Art. 10 (1) of the TRIPS Agreement furthers that:
Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention.[4].

The provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 have been crafted in the same line as that of these international instruments. S. 2(o) of the Act portrays computer programs as literary works. By virtue of S.14 of the Act read with S.17, the copyright owner of the computer program will have exclusive rights of distribution, adaptation, modification, reproduction and assignment over that program. S.22 of the Act, provides that the fortification shall be available for the copyright holder for 60 long years.

Essential Features of Copyleft
Copyleft is originated from Open-Source Movement.

The open sources movement promotes the idea of association. Therefore, this means that some of the significant features include:

1. not limiting anyone from selling or redistributing the software
2. not restricting anyone from distributing altered/changed or derivative works;
3. applying the same licence terms to all parties that you issue the software to;
4. providing the basis code in a form that aids the growth of the software;
5. acknowledgement of each author's input to each modification; and
6. no warranties supporting the work of the software or that no one's intellectual property rights have been infringed.

Copyleft and Creative Commons
Creative Commons license is such a system in which the maker allows other users to utilize his work without copyright infringement of the copyright. The concept of copyleft licensing is more or less the same as Creative Commons license. It can be called as a form of Creative Commons license. Though the essential requirements for both the licenses might be different but the purpose of both remains the same i.e. recognizing the work of the original creator by observing the essential conditions provided by each license.

The OSS license: Copyleft vs. non-Copyleft licenses
OSS licenses are said to be belonged to two categories: copyleft and non-copyleft. The major difference between these two categories is the type of restrictions imposed by them on the freedom of licensee for the re-distribution of the OSS-licensed software under their terms and conditions.

Non-copyleft licenses
This form of licenses permits releasing alterations of the product/software under a changed licence, even a proprietary type. Illustrations are the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) licence, the X11 license and the Apache License. The key requirement imposed by these licenses alarms the necessity to provide credit to providers.

Products/Software set in the public domain, which is the product/software whose author has precisely and clearly given up copyright can be described, in terms of its future effects for incentives, as a non-proprietary licence with no associated restrictions, nevertheless in this scenario there is neither an owner nor a licence.

Copyleft licences
The restrictions imposed by copyleft licenses are more rigorous as compared to that of non-copyleft licenses. The obligation to the license future developments is one of the most rigorous restrictions of the copyleft licenses under the similar terms. Therefore, the copyright over the creations of the original software code is retained by the developers of contributions. Instead, the same must be distributed by such developers under the initial license's terms and conditions. This restriction is imposed upon the users by a copyleft license called General Public License (GPL).

Consequently, copyleft and non-copyleft licenses differ from the previous significantly restrict licensees' freedoms with respect to the non-copyleft licenses. Though GPL does not provides owners/ developers the independence to develop the OSS-licensed software and licence their developments as owner/proprietary but BSD (mostly all non-copyleft open source licenses) provides such freedom.

It can be certainly said that unlike GPL, the BSD provides the developer with an opportunity to deny other users and developers to access the better version or deny the software from using the original product as a component. Further, copyleft license also restrict the developer�s freedom by preventing the copylefted software from being combined with proprietary programs.

This requires the two major disadvantages of the GPL relative to non-copyleft licenses usually highlighted in practitioner's debate:

1. the fact that it reduces developers ability to combine proprietary and non-proprietary projects and;
2. the fact that it reduces incentives because it allows reaping lower commercial benefits.

The latter disadvantages are commonly presumed to be serious, in the sense that they are taken to suggest the dominance of the BSD over the GPL.

Copyright vs. Copyleft
The existence of the copyright is to protect the authors from getting their software and literary work used in an inappropriate or unauthorized manner. The central difference between the copyright and the copyleft is that in the former case there must be a requirement for the author's consent for the use of any of his work whereas in the latter case it provides a method through which the original work of the author can be altered, modified or distributed back in the society for further use.

In the case of documentation, a writer or author can place his/her copyright in the document along with the terms of distribution which would though allow others to use, change, alter and redistribute the work of the author but only in consonance with the terms of his distribution. This makes sure that the source code and the freedoms are legally attached and inseparable.

This is termed as Copyleft. If any program is already available in the public domain and is non-copyrighted then the user has the right to alter, change, modify or distribute such work.

The copyleft not just concentrates on the availability of original source free of cost but any modification or the alterations as well. The consent for the use of such material is only provided to those who abide by the terms and conditions of the copyright while making such modifications, alterations or re-distributions.

Opinions in Favour and Against
It cannot be again said however, that wishful thinking has been a source of nourishment for many. The introduction of GPL itself provides that copyright is a complex and totally part of the license-in fact, the rights of alteration, distribution and modification etc. themselves get linked on the common thought of a copyright for the original author.[5]

It is not difficult to comprehend the discontent felt by the some people towards copyright in connection to the software. It all shoots from the argument of square peg in a round hole that has encouraged persons such as Samuelson to press for a sui generis, market-oriented approach to the protection of computer software, which would naturally demand the abandoning of many of the usual features of copyright.[6]

Though it is easy to say that copyright can be separated completely from a particular work but is the most difficult thing to do. Further, taking the fact into the consideration that the very essence of copyleft is copyright, it will not be appropriate to say that the copyright has been quenched altogether in this compass.

There can be no shred of evidence seen of harmony in regards to a substitute amongst the rivals of traditional copyright in software. At the same time, both copyleft and non-copy lefted open source software have their own believers and supporters. This movement brought a conflict with those who have strict ideological issues with intellectual property on the one side and those in favour of softwares which has been designed to ease the users and the market on the other side[7]. The better system out of both for the conventional path of copyright has still not been carved out by the jury.

The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license is debatably the jeroboam opus of the OSI, and is often contrasted with the GPL in a bid to associate and compare and contrast the features of their individual schools. The main feature of the BSD License may be understood thus. There are no restrictions on the use of source code as long as the requisite notice accompanied by it according to its terms and conditions[8].

Advocates of the GPL/copyleft in turn have said and expressed reservations about some of its features. One of them is the fact that the freedom does not serve the author, which they argue, is a disservice to the personality of the latter for future. Additionally, they claim, it is copyleft which is the true frontline of competition in the world market.

Non-copylefted open source softwares are apprehended that their source code can be bottled up at anytime and the distributors are permitted to cover the inadequacies in the source code. This leaves users with no availability of option and they are forced to return to it in time of need[9]. Therefore, they were of the opinion that the works under OSI would be should also be made liable as that in the case of ordinary proprietary software.

The major difference that vests behind the OSI and the free software is behind their developments. The former aims for practicality and market oriented approach whereas the latter follows the philosophy of the inspiration[10].It would not be false to say that the OSI system has gained a fair amount of success in the commercial market as compared to the Apache web server and the X Windows System which inflicts a good deal of damage upon recognized proprietary software rivals.

The constant fight between the FSF and the OSI has not been in the best interest of the struggle against the supposed domination of copyright and its digital portage. Hence, the gains is different as compared to the case if there had been unity in the ranks. Even Microsoft has been censoring both the groups equally without taking any chances.

The Future Ahead
The concept of the copyleft is no longer confined to the domain of computer software with the increasing growth. In 2001, Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School created the Creative Commons Organization, a non-profit charitable organization whose mission is to devise various groups of licenses for authors, musicians, artistes and others who desire to ensure that the fruits of their labour are made available for the public, without imposing stringent limitations on the right of reproduction or distribution as is the case with usual copyright.[11]

With respect to Creative Commons licenses, one is free to share (i.e., alter, change, copy, distribute or transmit) or familiarize the work in question, provided the same is attributed as per the directions of the author or licensor.[12] There is existence of a framework known as Free Art License in France and similar other nations. If the force of the GPL is on the availability of source codes for computer programs, the FAL positions for a common endeavour vis-a-vis the diffusion, sharing and arrogation to further the creation of artistic works [13].

The general objection against the thought of copyleft licenses has been that only the licensee has to tolerate the brunt of severities, whilst no such restrictions are placed upon the rights of the licensor. Modified copyleft license can also be envisaged as a remedy as a suggestion. According to this, what the license terms would also contain are any declarations or demonstrations made by the software producer.

Thus, what would be implied is a copyleft contract in reverse: the producer would be obligated to keep the stipulations open as a condition of its standard being accepted by the consumers who rely on the producer's open-source appearances.[14] Thus, being different from the usual copyleft, the constructor would also be involved in the same.

Conclusion
In the end of the day, copyleft is a philosophy. It is tough to make money when you commit to copyleft licensing. Even if you do end up making money, you will likely end up making meaningfully less than if you played by traditional rules of copyright. The freedom of users can only help you resist such difficulties. There can be lot to get overlapped between the copyleft creators and the open source software developers but copyleft does not just applies to software.

The free software movement has been criticized as it created hurdle in the development of feasible and profitable softwares, since the terms of the GPL are such that subsequent rival forms of the software cannot practically be priced any higher than the cost of reproduction and distribution of the GPL-licensed software, and thus the concept of free software fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector.

Therefore, this free software can be proven hazardous to the business. As already being understood the main essence of the free softwares were to collapse the businesses of the rivalries in the market. It is good to enter into the business but not upon the cost of having encroached upon the liberty of others in the market.

Instead of posing threat to the competition and the rivalries, the proprietary software majors would maybe be well to try and develop new and innovative software of their own, that which is governed by the GPL. In such an atmosphere of non stop thinking,

it is society, which would eventually benefit, as different to a situation of acrimony, which presently exists. In order to bring this out effectively, FSF and OSI will need to come together as one unit and try to eradicate their differences as soon as possible. An idealistic desideratum, admittedly, but otherwise, there appears to be no other way of ensuring that Stallman's vision achieves completion.

The real test of the GNU Project is yet to come, but everyone concerned is fairly optimistic that it would not be found wanting. Stallman, for all his impracticality and intransigency, heralded the start of something truly special, the probabilities of which are yet to be completely realized. Definitely it would be incorrect to brand Microsoft as the architect of all that is awry in the digital world.

They have to take a lion's share of the credit for changing computers from bewildering contraptions that only specialists dared handle to readily accessible devices, which luddites can easily use sans trepidation, and one cannot take that away from them. However, there does come a time when they are not really cherubic in their demeanour, and it is then that entities such as a certain MIT programmer, feels the urge to put them in their place. It is up to Microsoft and its brethren to bite the bullet and take the challenge head-on. If there are certainly as great as they are made out to be, they are almost definite to come up trumps.

End-Notes:

1. Retrieved from: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/copyleft-copyright-key-concepts/ Last Visited on 01/02/2021
2. Art. 4, WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996.
3. Art. 2 of the Berne Convention deals with the literary works.
4. Art. 10, TRIPS Agreement.
5. The Preamble states, We protect your rights with two steps: 1) copyright the software, and 2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software (Emphasis added). This would appear to bear testimony to the fact that copyright has anything but fallen into desuetude as far as copyleft is concerned. GPL, Retrieved from: www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL Last Visited on 01/02/2021.
6. Teresa Hill, Fragmenting the copyleft movement: The public will not prevail, Utah Law Review, 797 (1999) 808.
7. Ibid
8. However, there is absolutely no proscription on any user in the chain to appropriate the concerned software and lock away the source code, as a result of which subsequent users can view it solely in its object code avatar. Nadan Christian H, Open source licensing: Virus or virtue? Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 10 (2002) 361.
9. Pool David, Whencopyleft is bad for copyright, Retrieved from: www.news4neighbors.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/28/1732242& mode=nocomment&tid=1 Last Visited on 01/02/2021.
10. Madhavan Mahesh, Use of copyright by open source software movement on computer software and its implications, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 8(1) (2003) 35
11. The licenses are envisioned to be customized according to the wants and needs of the person concerned, and it is for the latter to lay down which rights specifically are desired to be parted with. Expressly declared to be copyleft licenses, as per individual needs, each license would consequently be modelled. Therefore, it is a case of certain (as opposed to all) rights reserved for the author concerned. Carlos Romero Moragas, Free Software-Freedom of knowledge is freedom to be creative, Retrieved from: www.wacc.org.uk/wacc/our_work/thinking/ ipr/copyleft_free_software Last Visited on 01/02/2021.
12. The thrust of Creative Commons is to strike a middle path between the extremities of total control (as in traditional copyright) and anarchy (where wide freedom also carries with it the hazard of increased susceptibility to exploitation). Although, (by its own admission) directly inspired by the GNU GPL, it consciously opts to steer clear of software, and focuses on other creative works such as websites, cinema, music etc. Its debut project (in December 2002) saw it releasing a set of copyright licenses free for the public to use. About us, www.creativecommons. org/about (9 April 2007).
13. SeverineDusollier, Open source and copyleft: Authorship reconsidered?, The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 26 (2003) 285.
14. Patterson Chip, Copyright misuse and modified copyleft: New solutions to the challenges of Internet standardization, Michigan Law Review, 98 (2000) 1379.

Written By: Shivang Tripathi, Advocate, Allahabad High Court