3 ms·

I was thinking about this recently, maybe FOSS isn't quite ideal for the developers. As long as nobody is compensated, it is very fair system. But if somebody

by js8 8y ago

I was thinking about this recently, maybe FOSS isn't quite ideal for the developers. As long as nobody is compensated, it is very fair system. But if somebody gets compensated for their work, then if their work depends on other people's work for free, the other people not being compensated is not fair. For example, consider somebody producing Youtube videos using FOSS. They are compensated, yet the authors of the tools they use are not (necessarily). FOSS basically started as a radical revolt against copyright system, which is somewhat dysfunctional, but its purpose was to make compensation fair. But maybe a better copyright system would actually help. Say limit copyright to 5-10 years. The short term would remove the huge gap between doing copyrighted work and doing work for free, and make them more compatible with each other.

ghaff 8y ago
>FOSS basically started as a radical revolt against copyright system FOSS depends on the copyright system in order to operate. If you don't have rights to created works you have no rights to impose reciprocal obligations on downstream users.
- js8 8y ago
  It kinda does, but it's an open question whether it's a requirement. In recent years, many programs became BSD-like licensed and it didn't impede the availability of their source code. Similarly, in the world of Minecraft, many mods started closed-source but free, and eventually became open-sourced, because it turned out to be beneficial on its own. I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that the copyleft clause is not required if there is enough rational self-interest. However, in the current copyright system (where the copyright lasts effectively forever), this self-interest commands to hoard the source code (for the duration of the copyright).
  - ghaff 8y ago
    There's a good argument that, given the success of the open source development model, permissive licenses are better because they put fewer roadblocks in the way of participation. And I tend to be in that camp. No argument about the problems of copyright terms though I'm not sure how relevant that is to software relative to software copyrightability generally.
    - js8 8y ago
      Yes, in a way, that's true. You can make free software more compatible with copyrights by turning it into open source. But you can also remove roadblocks in copyright to make commercial model closer to open source. Which is what I am talking about, and it would make it also beneficial for the open source developers. After all, if the open source model benefits everybody, why should only developers make the concession?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that the copyleft clause is not required if there is enough rational self-interest. At least RMS’s form of the Free Software philosophy sees preventing non-free software, not encouraging free software, as the highest goal. In this version of the philosophy, tools that prevent even a small amount of non-free software being made are valuable even if they don't do anything to encourage free software (and even if they impede it somewhat.)
    - js8 8y ago
      Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would be additional incentive to release the source code after it enters public domain.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would certainly not be helpful to the implementation of the philosophy of the part of the Free Software movement (which includes RMS) that wants to prevent non-free software from being created to the extent possible.
        js8 8y ago
        I am not sure what you mean. RMS himself expressed many times that the copyright term should be shortened. Remember, the copyright was created in order to promote creativity. If the term was short enough, then lots of useful software could be created based on the source code that is in public domain which was previously monetized by being closed source. This additional software would be an economic win for everybody.

by js8 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

>FOSS basically started as a radical revolt against copyright system FOSS depends on the copyright system in order to operate. If you don't have rights to created works you have no rights to impose reciprocal obligations on downstream users.

js8 8y ago
It kinda does, but it's an open question whether it's a requirement. In recent years, many programs became BSD-like licensed and it didn't impede the availability of their source code. Similarly, in the world of Minecraft, many mods started closed-source but free, and eventually became open-sourced, because it turned out to be beneficial on its own. I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that the copyleft clause is not required if there is enough rational self-interest. However, in the current copyright system (where the copyright lasts effectively forever), this self-interest commands to hoard the source code (for the duration of the copyright).
- ghaff 8y ago
  There's a good argument that, given the success of the open source development model, permissive licenses are better because they put fewer roadblocks in the way of participation. And I tend to be in that camp. No argument about the problems of copyright terms though I'm not sure how relevant that is to software relative to software copyrightability generally.
  - js8 8y ago
    Yes, in a way, that's true. You can make free software more compatible with copyrights by turning it into open source. But you can also remove roadblocks in copyright to make commercial model closer to open source. Which is what I am talking about, and it would make it also beneficial for the open source developers. After all, if the open source model benefits everybody, why should only developers make the concession?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that the copyleft clause is not required if there is enough rational self-interest. At least RMS’s form of the Free Software philosophy sees preventing non-free software, not encouraging free software, as the highest goal. In this version of the philosophy, tools that prevent even a small amount of non-free software being made are valuable even if they don't do anything to encourage free software (and even if they impede it somewhat.)
  - js8 8y ago
    Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would be additional incentive to release the source code after it enters public domain.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would certainly not be helpful to the implementation of the philosophy of the part of the Free Software movement (which includes RMS) that wants to prevent non-free software from being created to the extent possible.
      - js8 8y ago
        I am not sure what you mean. RMS himself expressed many times that the copyright term should be shortened. Remember, the copyright was created in order to promote creativity. If the term was short enough, then lots of useful software could be created based on the source code that is in public domain which was previously monetized by being closed source. This additional software would be an economic win for everybody.