6 ms·

I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source l

by rick888 16y ago

I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source license like the GPL gets demonized like they are a criminal.

kurokikaze 16y ago
It's perfectly normal. Double standards are core of our society :)
Mark_B 16y ago
I think it's a lot like Robin Hood. Piracy is viewed in some ways as "rob from the rich and give to the poor" which people in general can get on board with. However, breaking the GPL would be more like the opposite. Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right.
- cturner 16y ago
  You draw an unusual bow there (ahem). If I was going to bring Robin hood in, I'd have made the analogy between Robin Hood and the defenders of copyright, not the infringers. Copyright and Robin Hood ethics both breach the principle of live-and-let-live. Robin Hood's takes away from some people. He justifies this with claims about the welfare another group. Copyright applies the same principle. Defenders of copyright will say that in order to protect artists, engineers, etc, all of the rest of us should have less rights. We are not allowed to do certain things with magnetic signals on pieces of metal the we own, even in the privacy of our own homes. It's not clear that it gives actual benefit to the recipient group. In practice, these people aren't defended well if at all, and the cost to the system is huge. There'd also be a cost to the local economy if you had a brigand raiding merchants. I wouldn't operate in a region with those issues. Maybe if the people didn't have trading difficulties they'd have been able to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than being pushed into the arms of a revolutionary-come-nobleman.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right." It's strange that you say this, because no matter how many times someone creates a proprietary app based on the GPL license, nothing is lost. The original work is out there for all to enjoy (with credits to all the authors). The only thing you don't get are the changes (which weren't yours in the first place). Forcing changes to be under the GPL isn't for freedom, but political ideology.
- sourpoi 16y ago
  Agreed, with a minor refinement: Robin Hood taxed the tax men ("Robin Hood," Disney, 1973). It was less a matter of rich vs. poor than of beneficiaries vs. victims of oppressive taxation (similar mechanics, opposite direction). The GPL attempts to use the weight of copyrights in general as leverage against abusive copyrights.
maggit 16y ago
If you think of it as a question of ethics, not law, it's perfectly logical. That is; breaking the GPL does not make you a demon because you are breaking the law, but rather because you are being nasty to nice people. Illegally copying a movie is easier to accept, because it is easy to imagine that you are being nasty to the MPAA (if you are at all nasty).
Dementati 16y ago
The Pirate Party is not dedicated to piracy. It's dedicated to privacy and personal integrity, fighting the patent system and maintaining an open, free internet.
- patio11 16y ago
  This sounds like a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen. "But you've got a bloody black flag!" "Its the flag of fighting the patent system!" "And you want to host torrents out of Parliament!" "They're personal integrity torrents!" "And movies!" "Doubtlessly movies about personal integrity!"
  - Dementati 16y ago
    The whole pirate theme is intended as humour, and a lot of us love Monty Python. The point of defending the Pirate Bay is that it is in fact not the site itself but it's users that distribute files with copyright-protected content. The Pirate Bay is a neutral medium.
    - maggit 16y ago
      Is the first sentence in the linked article also intended as humour? "The Swedish Pirate Party, who are at the forefront of anti-copyright lobbying in Sweden, are (...)" The Swedish Pirate Party is indeed trying to reform copyright. Of course, you might argue that they are doing other things as well, so they are not "dedicated" to anti-copyright. But you can't deny that this is one of the party's policies.
      - Dementati 16y ago
        Of course, the party also wants to -modify- copyright law, but that's a different point. I did not intend to summarize party policy with my previous comment.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - 16y ago
cturner 16y ago
Depends whether you think of law as being the ultimate good, or something else. If you had civil-rights objections to copyright then you'd perceive the GPL as a neat hack around it but be looking for something to destroy it. Thinking about the rule of law as an ultimate good is a valid position. I've actually tried this, and you get into contrived situations like this one: the boss shows you a four line perl script in use at a client site that another company wrote ten years ago, and asks you to modify it in a trivial way to solve an important problem. You'll respond that you aren't allowed to do that for breach of copyright - unless the client company specifically relinquished the code then the rights vest with them. Further, you will explain that you can now no longer write code to replicate the functionality of it because you have been influenced by having read the code of the client company. Advocates of the rule of law should oppose laws that are selectively enforced, and absurdly complicated.
henrikschroder 16y ago
Noone would care? The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement.
- rick888 16y ago
  "The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement." Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL. You also bring up another good point. The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
  - henrikschroder 16y ago
    Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? I think you forgot a verb there? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. I'm not really sure what you're ranting against, but the whole point of the GPL is to force "give some, get some", and to stop people from profiting off of other people's work. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL. Good for you? The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine. Which community are you talking about now? The "pirate" community or the "free software" community? Also, the FSF is of the position that copyrights suck, but that doesn't stop them from making the GPL using existing copyright law. The GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Copyright law is as it is, and therefore we have the GPL as it is. If copyright law was different, for example if software couldn't be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the GPL at all.
patrickk 16y ago
Being mistrustful of copyright laws seems to be a hacker ethic. The price of an open web is to tolerate a certain amount of piracy. Sure, you could stamp out 99% of piracy on the web, by logging usage, throttling traffic, suing teenagers and deploying other heavy-handed tactics. But at what cost? I would argue that having an open web is better than trying to prune it to perfection. You will snuff out innovation and kill future Googles (do you think Google who have grown and thrived in AOL's walled garden?). Of couse, this isn't even factored into the equation when arguing against piracy because it's all 'what if'. How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. Remember Jobs and Woz used a 'blue box' to get free long distance calls on AT&T's network. Their next idea was the Apple I. Fast forward to the 2000's and the iPhone is making At&T billions. If this scene played out today, they would've probably been sued into oblivion or arrested by the FBI., and Apple would never have been. Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things). Pg talkes about this much better than I can in his essay about the nature of hackers: http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html "Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night, I'd want to go out and investigate. Hackers are not stupid, and unanimity is very rare in this world. So if they're all squawking, perhaps there is something amiss. Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America, will actually harm it? Think about it." I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web.
- BrandonM 16y ago
  > How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? I would expect this number to be close to 0. What does this even mean?
  - patrickk 16y ago
Yaggo 16y ago
The ones who usually violate the GPL are companies trying to profit from it. I don't care if an individual breaks a licence or copyright laws, it just tells that markets don't work¹. For example, I pirate HD movies only because nobody sells me them over the net as on-demand. [1] ... and the industry actively breaks it by creating artificial market regions and distribution restrictions. Hard to see why I'm not allowed to rent a movie from iTunes due to my physical location.
nmftt 16y ago
Actually, there has been some discussion[1] about how the Pirate Partys platform would affect the GPL. But as most people involved have some understanding of the issues, you get less of the "x is theft", "x can't survive because of y", etc. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html

by rick888 16y ago

kurokikaze 16y ago

It's perfectly normal. Double standards are core of our society :)

Mark_B 16y ago

I think it's a lot like Robin Hood. Piracy is viewed in some ways as "rob from the rich and give to the poor" which people in general can get on board with. However, breaking the GPL would be more like the opposite. Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right.

cturner 16y ago
You draw an unusual bow there (ahem). If I was going to bring Robin hood in, I'd have made the analogy between Robin Hood and the defenders of copyright, not the infringers. Copyright and Robin Hood ethics both breach the principle of live-and-let-live. Robin Hood's takes away from some people. He justifies this with claims about the welfare another group. Copyright applies the same principle. Defenders of copyright will say that in order to protect artists, engineers, etc, all of the rest of us should have less rights. We are not allowed to do certain things with magnetic signals on pieces of metal the we own, even in the privacy of our own homes. It's not clear that it gives actual benefit to the recipient group. In practice, these people aren't defended well if at all, and the cost to the system is huge. There'd also be a cost to the local economy if you had a brigand raiding merchants. I wouldn't operate in a region with those issues. Maybe if the people didn't have trading difficulties they'd have been able to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than being pushed into the arms of a revolutionary-come-nobleman.
rick888 16y ago
"Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right." It's strange that you say this, because no matter how many times someone creates a proprietary app based on the GPL license, nothing is lost. The original work is out there for all to enjoy (with credits to all the authors). The only thing you don't get are the changes (which weren't yours in the first place). Forcing changes to be under the GPL isn't for freedom, but political ideology.
sourpoi 16y ago
Agreed, with a minor refinement: Robin Hood taxed the tax men ("Robin Hood," Disney, 1973). It was less a matter of rich vs. poor than of beneficiaries vs. victims of oppressive taxation (similar mechanics, opposite direction). The GPL attempts to use the weight of copyrights in general as leverage against abusive copyrights.

maggit 16y ago

If you think of it as a question of ethics, not law, it's perfectly logical. That is; breaking the GPL does not make you a demon because you are breaking the law, but rather because you are being nasty to nice people. Illegally copying a movie is easier to accept, because it is easy to imagine that you are being nasty to the MPAA (if you are at all nasty).

Dementati 16y ago

The Pirate Party is not dedicated to piracy. It's dedicated to privacy and personal integrity, fighting the patent system and maintaining an open, free internet.

patio11 16y ago
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen. "But you've got a bloody black flag!" "Its the flag of fighting the patent system!" "And you want to host torrents out of Parliament!" "They're personal integrity torrents!" "And movies!" "Doubtlessly movies about personal integrity!"
- Dementati 16y ago
  The whole pirate theme is intended as humour, and a lot of us love Monty Python. The point of defending the Pirate Bay is that it is in fact not the site itself but it's users that distribute files with copyright-protected content. The Pirate Bay is a neutral medium.
  - maggit 16y ago
    Is the first sentence in the linked article also intended as humour? "The Swedish Pirate Party, who are at the forefront of anti-copyright lobbying in Sweden, are (...)" The Swedish Pirate Party is indeed trying to reform copyright. Of course, you might argue that they are doing other things as well, so they are not "dedicated" to anti-copyright. But you can't deny that this is one of the party's policies.
    - Dementati 16y ago
      Of course, the party also wants to -modify- copyright law, but that's a different point. I did not intend to summarize party policy with my previous comment.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - 16y ago

cturner 16y ago

Depends whether you think of law as being the ultimate good, or something else. If you had civil-rights objections to copyright then you'd perceive the GPL as a neat hack around it but be looking for something to destroy it. Thinking about the rule of law as an ultimate good is a valid position. I've actually tried this, and you get into contrived situations like this one: the boss shows you a four line perl script in use at a client site that another company wrote ten years ago, and asks you to modify it in a trivial way to solve an important problem. You'll respond that you aren't allowed to do that for breach of copyright - unless the client company specifically relinquished the code then the rights vest with them. Further, you will explain that you can now no longer write code to replicate the functionality of it because you have been influenced by having read the code of the client company. Advocates of the rule of law should oppose laws that are selectively enforced, and absurdly complicated.

henrikschroder 16y ago

Noone would care? The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement.

rick888 16y ago
"The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement." Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL. You also bring up another good point. The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? I think you forgot a verb there? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. I'm not really sure what you're ranting against, but the whole point of the GPL is to force "give some, get some", and to stop people from profiting off of other people's work. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL. Good for you? The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine. Which community are you talking about now? The "pirate" community or the "free software" community? Also, the FSF is of the position that copyrights suck, but that doesn't stop them from making the GPL using existing copyright law. The GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Copyright law is as it is, and therefore we have the GPL as it is. If copyright law was different, for example if software couldn't be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the GPL at all.

patrickk 16y ago

Being mistrustful of copyright laws seems to be a hacker ethic. The price of an open web is to tolerate a certain amount of piracy. Sure, you could stamp out 99% of piracy on the web, by logging usage, throttling traffic, suing teenagers and deploying other heavy-handed tactics. But at what cost? I would argue that having an open web is better than trying to prune it to perfection. You will snuff out innovation and kill future Googles (do you think Google who have grown and thrived in AOL's walled garden?). Of couse, this isn't even factored into the equation when arguing against piracy because it's all 'what if'. How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. Remember Jobs and Woz used a 'blue box' to get free long distance calls on AT&T's network. Their next idea was the Apple I. Fast forward to the 2000's and the iPhone is making At&T billions. If this scene played out today, they would've probably been sued into oblivion or arrested by the FBI., and Apple would never have been. Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things). Pg talkes about this much better than I can in his essay about the nature of hackers: http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html "Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night, I'd want to go out and investigate. Hackers are not stupid, and unanimity is very rare in this world. So if they're all squawking, perhaps there is something amiss. Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America, will actually harm it? Think about it." I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web.

BrandonM 16y ago
> How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? I would expect this number to be close to 0. What does this even mean?
- patrickk 16y ago

Yaggo 16y ago

The ones who usually violate the GPL are companies trying to profit from it. I don't care if an individual breaks a licence or copyright laws, it just tells that markets don't work¹. For example, I pirate HD movies only because nobody sells me them over the net as on-demand. [1] ... and the industry actively breaks it by creating artificial market regions and distribution restrictions. Hard to see why I'm not allowed to rent a movie from iTunes due to my physical location.

nmftt 16y ago

Actually, there has been some discussion[1] about how the Pirate Partys platform would affect the GPL. But as most people involved have some understanding of the issues, you get less of the "x is theft", "x can't survive because of y", etc. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html