3 ms·
This is way too hung-up on the idea of ownership. Software licensing seems like a beast unto its own but what do you suppose would happen if you bought a car,
by oliwarner 8y ago
This is way too hung-up on the idea of ownership.
Software licensing seems like a beast unto its own but what do you suppose would happen if you bought a car, a camera, a kettle, a pair of glasses, duplicated it 1:1 and tried to sell those copies? You'd fall foul of a thousand protected designs and trademarks. IP is everywhere.
It's not about what you own. It's about what rights are granted to you. Software is only strange in this regard because as developers we're [often painfully] explicit about what you can do. It isn't yet obfuscated behind decades of evolving law.
Please stop throwing "ownership" around as something you expect when you download something. It's silly to expect it.
The same works in reverse. You own your modifications. Nobody else owns (or has right to) them without your grant. But could well be compounded into a license, or more commonly a contributor agreement... But it has to be explicit.
Edit: After getting a couple of downs, I assumed my pre-coffee acidity may have burned through, so edited it to be softer... but I've had another since. If you've got a point to make, please leave a comment.
- icebraining 8y agoI think Cantrill's point is that by owning a copy of a copyrighted work, you have a bunch of rights granted by law, which EULAs try to claw back.
- IAmEveryone 8y agoI believe this comment neatly goes at the heart of this discussion. I have absolutely no horse in this particular fight, having never even used any software by confluence, as far as I know. Coming into this discussion as somewhat of a blank slate, I stumbled over this somewhat nebulous concept of “ownership” just like the parent, plus some mild dismay at seeing the only two threats meaningfully engaging with what IMHO is the core of this dispute being flagged into oblivion. To reiterate: I have no earthly idea nor opinion if Confluence is the confluence of everything that’s wrong with earth and beyond. I just think the argument would benefit from a sharp pencil more than a pitchfork, for now.
- wtallis 8y ago> I stumbled over this somewhat nebulous concept of “ownership” just like the parent, A lack of clarity about what sort of transaction or license terms give rise to ownership of a copy of software is not justification for entirely rejecting the notion of ownership of a copy. The existence of that ownership status is rigidly established by statute, as are some of the consequences. It's only the prerequisites that are nebulous or at least very complicated, but that doesn't make ownership status any less important of a question. In legal disputes, the tricky questions are usually more important than the ones with obvious answers.
- UncleEntity 8y ago> ...and tried to sell those copies? You'd fall foul of a thousand protected designs and trademarks. Sure, but that's not what is at issue here. A more apt comparison would be if your glasses manufacturer says you're in violation of their EULA if you try to read anything ever written by Hemingway (because that goes against their business interests for whatever reason) and so your license to use their glasses becomes null and void. Copyright, on the other hand, is much different -- and also implied by the name -- the right to copy (well, really, to distribute) the work.