4 ms·

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 suppo

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?
      - phkahler 9y ago
        By not providing the source code. That doesn't preclude decompilation, but that's just not the same thing.
        cyphar 9y ago
        While having the source is an important part of something being free software, the far more insidious problems with proprietary software are the other freedoms they strip away from you -- the freedoms to use and distribute the software. Not to mention that in the 60s, source code was always provided because nobody thought it was valuable (and copyright was not applied to said source code). The software was the source code. I can imagine that if we actually went through a cultural shift of abandoning the completely ludicrous views of modern copyright, that companies would start providing source code again (we're seeing that happen today, in small steps, with companies making more and more free software projects -- even without the copyright reform). There would be no incentive to keep the source unavailable, because they'd have no monopoly on it.
        cjbprime 9y ago
        See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software -- your definition of "proprietary software" as equal to "closed source software" is idiosyncratic.
    - gnulinux 9y ago
      If you don't have exclusive right to code, there is no reason why people shouldn't access it.

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?
    - phkahler 9y ago
      By not providing the source code. That doesn't preclude decompilation, but that's just not the same thing.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        While having the source is an important part of something being free software, the far more insidious problems with proprietary software are the other freedoms they strip away from you -- the freedoms to use and distribute the software. Not to mention that in the 60s, source code was always provided because nobody thought it was valuable (and copyright was not applied to said source code). The software was the source code. I can imagine that if we actually went through a cultural shift of abandoning the completely ludicrous views of modern copyright, that companies would start providing source code again (we're seeing that happen today, in small steps, with companies making more and more free software projects -- even without the copyright reform). There would be no incentive to keep the source unavailable, because they'd have no monopoly on it.
      - cjbprime 9y ago
        See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software -- your definition of "proprietary software" as equal to "closed source software" is idiosyncratic.
  - gnulinux 9y ago
    If you don't have exclusive right to code, there is no reason why people shouldn't access it.