10 ms·

This is going to be one of the most embarassing chapters of world history in a few centuries. "Oh yeah, all those old folk at the turn of the milennia had this

by zanny 9y ago

This is going to be one of the most embarassing chapters of world history in a few centuries. "Oh yeah, all those old folk at the turn of the milennia had this thing called copyright and all their code was proprietary so we no longer can run or use 99% of software written between 1970 and 20XX". "And there are these files where it was a felony to be able to access them!" Wow those guys were sure dumb. Now all our information is open and shared and makes the world a better place and anyone can use it or improve it! All I can is lets hope its only until a 20XX that we get over the facade of IP being worth the cost.

squarefoot 9y ago
"This is going to be one of the most embarassing chapters of world history in a few centuries." And it won't be that far from archaeologists being prevented to decipher any ancient language. If today's copyright laws existed in historic times we wouldn't have precious documents copied by monks nor the Rosetta Stone. It's just dumb crazy how this works.
pkaye 9y ago
Is having copyright a concern? Even Linux has a copyright. And all GNU software. Do you want all forms of copyright not to exist?
- zanny 9y ago
  I am a general IP abolitionist, but the real solution to the problem of source code lost forever is in the domain of right to repair. Since the advent of software the right to repair, which used to be respected for almost anything you could buy, has been completely abandoned. Requiring access to the sources to modify code you buy (or in a post-IP world, receive in binary form) would go a long way to stopping the software culture death of source code never being released and rotting on hard drives until its irretrievable. The problem is the current dominant culture is either completely apathetic or actually hostile to right to repair for software. Its why I say "I hope its only 20XX" because I don't see the path to fixing that mindset. That being said, it is important to distinguish that while I spoke about how future historians will see both draconian IP and the lack of right to repair as barbaric and antiquated, they are distinct but related concepts.
- cjbprime 9y ago
  GNU software's clearly using copyright as a hack ("copyleft") to achieve its actual goal of a non-copyright world. So it shouldn't be surprising that GNU supporters would prefer copyright not to exist.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    >> So it shouldn't be surprising that GNU supporters would prefer copyright not to exist. Not so sure. That would effectively make all open source code fall under the equivalent of a BSD or MIT license, which the GPL clearly is not. GPL want's the essential freedoms to apply to all derivative works as well as the original. Neither BSD, MIT, or complete lack of copyright can make that happen.
    - gnulinux 9y ago
      FSM is about making all software free, not all software GPL'd. If copyright laws are dissolved and prop. software got outlawed, there would be no need for GPL. GPL is a hack to circumvent future prop. software using your code. In other words, if no one can hide their source code, there wouldn't be a difference between MIT and GPL.
      - phkahler 9y ago
        Abolition of copyright and banning proprietary software seem like two very different things. The comment I replied to just mentioned elimination of copyright. I agree that combined with a ban on proprietary software none of the licenses would really matter - depending on the wording of the laws of course.
        cjbprime 9y ago
        I don't see how they're at all different, let alone very different. How would you legally have proprietary software without copyright law?
        9y ago
- cyphar 9y ago
  RMS has historically viewed copyright as a bad thing[1], all the way from how it has developed historically to how it is applied uniformly to different kinds of works (practical works like software being copyrighted is of particular concern). Now, you might say that "the GPL uses copyright, which clearly means that RMS and the FSF are pro-copyright". They're not. Copyleft is a hack of the copyright system[2], specifically designed such that as copyright becomes stronger so does the amount of freedom provided by copyleft. This is explicitly the purpose. If it were not legal to stop users from modifying software, then the GPL would not need to exist (nor could it). RMS has stated[3] that his views on an ideal copyright system is: 1. Authors retain copyright, not publishers. This matches the original copyright law that was created in England under Queen Mary in The Statute of Anne (1710)[4]. 2. The scope of works covered would be reduced. Most importantly, practical works would not be covered under copyright. 3. The length of time that copyright applies to a work would be massively reduced. Works are being created today that children born today will never see in the public domain. The solution is to reduce the length of time that copyright applies to 10 years (or possibly 5, which some authors appear to prefer). 4. The breadth of restrictions would be reduced. Most notably, distribution of a work would no longer require permission from the owner. The argument for this change requires watching his entire lecture, but it comes from a historical argument on how copyright has developed and how modern copyright has broken the trend in that it attacking consumers of a work rather than publishers (which was the original purpose, if you look at the development of copyright law alongside the development of copying technologies like the printing press). Not to mention that lending a book to a friend or selling it are both perfectly acceptable things to do. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
kzrdude 9y ago
Yes fortunately copyright is governed by law and we can (with good governance) change them for the better in the future.

by zanny 9y ago

squarefoot 9y ago

"This is going to be one of the most embarassing chapters of world history in a few centuries." And it won't be that far from archaeologists being prevented to decipher any ancient language. If today's copyright laws existed in historic times we wouldn't have precious documents copied by monks nor the Rosetta Stone. It's just dumb crazy how this works.

pkaye 9y ago

Is having copyright a concern? Even Linux has a copyright. And all GNU software. Do you want all forms of copyright not to exist?

zanny 9y ago
I am a general IP abolitionist, but the real solution to the problem of source code lost forever is in the domain of right to repair. Since the advent of software the right to repair, which used to be respected for almost anything you could buy, has been completely abandoned. Requiring access to the sources to modify code you buy (or in a post-IP world, receive in binary form) would go a long way to stopping the software culture death of source code never being released and rotting on hard drives until its irretrievable. The problem is the current dominant culture is either completely apathetic or actually hostile to right to repair for software. Its why I say "I hope its only 20XX" because I don't see the path to fixing that mindset. That being said, it is important to distinguish that while I spoke about how future historians will see both draconian IP and the lack of right to repair as barbaric and antiquated, they are distinct but related concepts.
cjbprime 9y ago
GNU software's clearly using copyright as a hack ("copyleft") to achieve its actual goal of a non-copyright world. So it shouldn't be surprising that GNU supporters would prefer copyright not to exist.
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> So it shouldn't be surprising that GNU supporters would prefer copyright not to exist. Not so sure. That would effectively make all open source code fall under the equivalent of a BSD or MIT license, which the GPL clearly is not. GPL want's the essential freedoms to apply to all derivative works as well as the original. Neither BSD, MIT, or complete lack of copyright can make that happen.
  - gnulinux 9y ago
    FSM is about making all software free, not all software GPL'd. If copyright laws are dissolved and prop. software got outlawed, there would be no need for GPL. GPL is a hack to circumvent future prop. software using your code. In other words, if no one can hide their source code, there wouldn't be a difference between MIT and GPL.
    - phkahler 9y ago
      Abolition of copyright and banning proprietary software seem like two very different things. The comment I replied to just mentioned elimination of copyright. I agree that combined with a ban on proprietary software none of the licenses would really matter - depending on the wording of the laws of course.
      - cjbprime 9y ago
        I don't see how they're at all different, let alone very different. How would you legally have proprietary software without copyright law?
        9y ago
cyphar 9y ago
RMS has historically viewed copyright as a bad thing[1], all the way from how it has developed historically to how it is applied uniformly to different kinds of works (practical works like software being copyrighted is of particular concern). Now, you might say that "the GPL uses copyright, which clearly means that RMS and the FSF are pro-copyright". They're not. Copyleft is a hack of the copyright system[2], specifically designed such that as copyright becomes stronger so does the amount of freedom provided by copyleft. This is explicitly the purpose. If it were not legal to stop users from modifying software, then the GPL would not need to exist (nor could it). RMS has stated[3] that his views on an ideal copyright system is: 1. Authors retain copyright, not publishers. This matches the original copyright law that was created in England under Queen Mary in The Statute of Anne (1710)[4]. 2. The scope of works covered would be reduced. Most importantly, practical works would not be covered under copyright. 3. The length of time that copyright applies to a work would be massively reduced. Works are being created today that children born today will never see in the public domain. The solution is to reduce the length of time that copyright applies to 10 years (or possibly 5, which some authors appear to prefer). 4. The breadth of restrictions would be reduced. Most notably, distribution of a work would no longer require permission from the owner. The argument for this change requires watching his entire lecture, but it comes from a historical argument on how copyright has developed and how modern copyright has broken the trend in that it attacking consumers of a work rather than publishers (which was the original purpose, if you look at the development of copyright law alongside the development of copying technologies like the printing press). Not to mention that lending a book to a friend or selling it are both perfectly acceptable things to do. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

kzrdude 9y ago

Yes fortunately copyright is governed by law and we can (with good governance) change them for the better in the future.