3 ms·

>Or, more specifically, they should be regulated so that non-free software licenses are illegal or severely restricted. I think it is OK to just not have copyr

>Or, more specifically, they should be regulated so that non-free software licenses are illegal or severely restricted. I think it is OK to just not have copyrights (and also not have patents). And then, there is no non-free software licenses because it is not copyright, so even if they write them they do not have any legal meaning. Stallman's idea, that practical works you can freely use/modify/distribute/etc but artistic works it is permitted to be a limited copyright (only a few years), might also work, I think (although I am not entirely sure; I think it is probably simpler to just abolish copyright entirely). I have also seen a suggestion to tax copyright so that you have to pay a annual tax, and can copyright it for up to ten years, but anyone who pays 100 times the tax rate of copyright can force it into the public domain early. I think that can do (and if the government likes to earn money, it can help them too), but still perhaps the copyright should not be applicable for practical works, which instead are freely usable. (Some works may be hybrid, and that is more difficult. One idea is if you can separate the parts easily enough then you can copyright the artistic parts, but if you cannot then it is forced public domain; making the source code of a computer game available may be one way to do, so that you will want to release the source codes anyways in order that you may copyright the artistic non-practical-works of them.) But whether or not is copyright, there should be a requirement of warning label on commercial products that use DRM, and there should not be laws to restrict circumventing them on your own copies of works/devices.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stephenr 8y ago
> I think it is OK to just not have copyrights Without copyright the GPL (or any other license) is unenforceable
- zzo38computer 8y ago
  I am aware, of course. But it is still better than copyrighted proprietary software, I think.
  - stephenr 8y ago
    So a "Free" license that has literally no legal protection from abuse is better than the mere existence of proprietary software? This makes zero sense. The companies that are currently publishing copyrighted proprietary software would then be free to take the GPL software, make improvements for their own purposes and distributed the compiled binaries and make profits without providing the improvements back. As a proponent of permissive licenses I have no qualms about my software being enhanced and used by others without giving back those improvements - but the whole point of the GPL is to prevent that - so a GPL without copyright may as well be MPL or BSD or MIT.
    - zzo38computer 8y ago
      Sorry, maybe I was being unclear, because it isn't quite what I meant. I meant that that I think having no copyright at all is better than copyright enforcing proprietary software. Yes, you still would be able to distribute compiled binaries without providing the improvements back (and I think permissive licenses (I use public domain myself, rather than copyright) are much simpler than the GPL), but someone can try to reverse it (or to do other things with it) and they can't arrest them for that (although anyone can still make complaints about what the company is doing, to give them a bad reputation; people could still complain about anything they wanted to complain about). I know what is the point of the GPL, and I like that point, but think it is complicated, and I do not like copyright. Of course if I write a program I would like that others who make modifications (public) that they would also contribute those source codes too, but I do not like to put in legal obstructions, so you should have freedom rather than having too many laws and obstructions.
jammygit 8y ago
How would authors make money without copyright? Publishers would just print whatever they wanted and authors would be living off patreon and ad revenue like youtubers today do...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stephenr 8y ago

> I think it is OK to just not have copyrights Without copyright the GPL (or any other license) is unenforceable

zzo38computer 8y ago
I am aware, of course. But it is still better than copyrighted proprietary software, I think.
- stephenr 8y ago
  So a "Free" license that has literally no legal protection from abuse is better than the mere existence of proprietary software? This makes zero sense. The companies that are currently publishing copyrighted proprietary software would then be free to take the GPL software, make improvements for their own purposes and distributed the compiled binaries and make profits without providing the improvements back. As a proponent of permissive licenses I have no qualms about my software being enhanced and used by others without giving back those improvements - but the whole point of the GPL is to prevent that - so a GPL without copyright may as well be MPL or BSD or MIT.
  - zzo38computer 8y ago
    Sorry, maybe I was being unclear, because it isn't quite what I meant. I meant that that I think having no copyright at all is better than copyright enforcing proprietary software. Yes, you still would be able to distribute compiled binaries without providing the improvements back (and I think permissive licenses (I use public domain myself, rather than copyright) are much simpler than the GPL), but someone can try to reverse it (or to do other things with it) and they can't arrest them for that (although anyone can still make complaints about what the company is doing, to give them a bad reputation; people could still complain about anything they wanted to complain about). I know what is the point of the GPL, and I like that point, but think it is complicated, and I do not like copyright. Of course if I write a program I would like that others who make modifications (public) that they would also contribute those source codes too, but I do not like to put in legal obstructions, so you should have freedom rather than having too many laws and obstructions.

jammygit 8y ago

How would authors make money without copyright? Publishers would just print whatever they wanted and authors would be living off patreon and ad revenue like youtubers today do...