3 ms·

> His expertise and hard work went into making the plans. It's no more "real" than a print-out of a program. Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living

> His expertise and hard work went into making the plans. It's no more "real" than a print-out of a program. Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. That analogy doesn't totally work with software though. There aren't (for-profit) companies that focus solely on architecture without building software. It's more like if the architect also owned a construction firm and posted the plans for free on their website with a notice like "ConstructionCo provides these plans free of charge and AS-IS for use when building your own home. If you are looking for a team to build one of these plans, please consider contacting ConstructionCo as we have years of experience with these specific housing plans, and can offer you a warranty and home-insurance as part of a package. If you like these plans, but want modifications to the design, ConstructionCo can gladly accommodate you for a price."

dhimes 10y ago
Excellent. But the problem here is you don't have the 'construct the home' step in using software. You can (let's say) take the specs and 3d-print it. You only need to hire the firm for changes and bug-fixes, and, even then, if you wanted something unique you're out of luck because you have to give away your uniqueness. Maybe a better analogy would be writing songs. If you weren't allowed to copyright songs but only performances, then those who simply wrote songs would be out of luck, because those who could perform them better but couldn't write as well would simply take their work. Or if a writer couldn't copyright her book but only her readings of it.