4 ms·

Is it cognitive dissonance, or simply different people commenting? HN is not a hive mind.

by Sacho 10y ago

olalonde 10y ago
Can't say for sure, just the feeling I get. HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones).
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones). I wouldn't use the GPL as a copyrights poster-boy since it subverts the 'normal' use of copyrights (restriction of distribution by 3rd parties) - the FSF calls it 'copyleft' for that very reason. My feeling is that being pro-GPL and being pro-bittorrent is consistent with the "information wants to be free" mindset - no cognitive dissonance necessary. The day HN becomes pro-Mickey-Mouse laws then you would have an argument.
  - olalonde 10y ago
    I disagree that the GPL subverts the 'normal' use of copyright (though I'm aware it is presented as such by the FSF). Tons of copyrighted works are licensed for distribution by 3rd parties. Software licenses which allowed unrestricted distribution existed before the GPL. What the GPL innovated on was to put light restrictions on distribution to ensure modified source code would be made available along with binary distributions. In a world without copyright, there would still be tons of software without publicly available source code (perhaps more than now, due to the inability to enforce GPL violations). Also, "information wants to be free" is more of a vague idea than anything else. I want information to be free. I'm a big user and proponent of open source software (heck, I wrote a non-trivial feature of Webtorrent). That doesn't necessarily mean I'm against copyright.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Software licenses which allowed unrestricted distribution existed before the GPL There is a world of a difference between 'allowing' distribution of source code and mandating it (like the GPL does).
      - Houshalter 10y ago
        Isn't that exactly his point though? That the main innovation with GPL would be unenforceable without copyright.

Is it cognitive dissonance, or simply different people commenting? HN is not a hive mind.

by Sacho 10y ago

Is it cognitive dissonance, or simply different people commenting? HN is not a hive mind.

Can't say for sure, just the feeling I get. HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones).

sangnoir 10y ago
> HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones). I wouldn't use the GPL as a copyrights poster-boy since it subverts the 'normal' use of copyrights (restriction of distribution by 3rd parties) - the FSF calls it 'copyleft' for that very reason. My feeling is that being pro-GPL and being pro-bittorrent is consistent with the "information wants to be free" mindset - no cognitive dissonance necessary. The day HN becomes pro-Mickey-Mouse laws then you would have an argument.
- olalonde 10y ago
  I disagree that the GPL subverts the 'normal' use of copyright (though I'm aware it is presented as such by the FSF). Tons of copyrighted works are licensed for distribution by 3rd parties. Software licenses which allowed unrestricted distribution existed before the GPL. What the GPL innovated on was to put light restrictions on distribution to ensure modified source code would be made available along with binary distributions. In a world without copyright, there would still be tons of software without publicly available source code (perhaps more than now, due to the inability to enforce GPL violations). Also, "information wants to be free" is more of a vague idea than anything else. I want information to be free. I'm a big user and proponent of open source software (heck, I wrote a non-trivial feature of Webtorrent). That doesn't necessarily mean I'm against copyright.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Software licenses which allowed unrestricted distribution existed before the GPL There is a world of a difference between 'allowing' distribution of source code and mandating it (like the GPL does).
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      Isn't that exactly his point though? That the main innovation with GPL would be unenforceable without copyright.