3 ms·

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 availabil

by 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

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.