4 ms·

Without IP how can you enforce copyleft? Someone could just take your code and modify it and distribute modified binaries without you being able to do anything.

wolfgke 7y ago
> Without IP how can you enforce copyleft? Someone could just take your code and modify it and distribute modified binaries without you being able to do anything. You can, for example, reverse-engineer these binaries or develop binary patches (without IP laws, all of this becomes legal).
TeMPOraL 7y ago
You wouldn't have to. Without copyright, it seems to me that everything becomes copyleft by default. I could, for example, modify any piece of software I like, and legally distribute modified copies to others. Even if I didn't want to share my modifications with a larger community (or didn't want to do it for free), I couldn't stop it - someone else could do that for me. And as 'wolfgke points out, being open source doesn't matter much here.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > You wouldn't have to. Without copyright, it seems to me that everything becomes copyleft by default. No, without copyright, you cannot force the other party to give you access to the original source code. BTW: There does not seem to exist an open source license that tries to emulate "no copyright"/"no IP". I.e. the license allows reverse engineering of all binaries derived from it virally, create modifications etc. and perhaps allows to use patents; but the license does not give you the right to demand access to the original source code.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    You argued upthread for reverse engineering. Binary is the source code, albeit in less convenient form. So maybe it wouldn't be strict copyleft, but close enough.
    - wolfgke 7y ago
      > Binary is the source code, albeit in less convenient form. At least the copyleft defenders would not agree.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      > Binary is the source code, albeit in less convenient form. So maybe it wouldn't be strict copyleft, but close enough. Buddy, you must never have worked with a decompiler. To say nothing of the source file structure and comments that are lost along the way.
      - naniwaduni 7y ago
        Instead we get tarball dumps with no change history.
        kbutler 7y ago
        Tarball dumps are OK. The GPL doesn't require change history. Although it can be quite helpful, it would be quite hard to define universally - what level of history is required? It could range from "every character typed" to "changes from the last public release", which is essentially what we have now. GPL requires source code, which it defines as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." This prevents release of compilable-but-obfuscated code, or transpiler output, etc., or intentional removal of information required to build the software (though this clause causes GPL-compatibility issues with authenticated-build platforms).
        naniwaduni 7y ago
        The difference between sifting through tarball dumps and puzzling through binaries is essentially of degree, not kind. If there's a line to draw, perhaps it should have been at "intentional removal of information".
  - fceccon 7y ago
    Employees can take source code with them when leaving a company and share it with others.
thenewnewguy 7y ago
In the existing legal system you can't. But we could write laws that allow this to be a thing (i.e. instead of the current situation of "you have full control over who can copy/redistribute your IP" it becomes "anyone can copy/redistribute your IP but you are allowed to specify X criteria including the requirement to redistribute source code").
zanny 7y ago
Something contemporary American culture has entirely forgot is the principle of a right to repair. Even in a post-IP world you can have it be law that anything sold must include its documentation, manuals, and thus in the case of software on the sold product, its source code. The fact so few realize how grossly unjust it is that most products sold today not only are undocumented but are intentionally obfuscated to make repair nigh impossible in order to drive replacement is the origin of the problem, though.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's even worse - this is something of a yesterday's problem. We have a growing trend of turning products into services, which not only prevents you from repairing things (which you now don't own), but also restricts ways you can use them and creates an aggressive form of planned obsolescence.

wolfgke 7y ago

> Without IP how can you enforce copyleft? Someone could just take your code and modify it and distribute modified binaries without you being able to do anything. You can, for example, reverse-engineer these binaries or develop binary patches (without IP laws, all of this becomes legal).

TeMPOraL 7y ago

You wouldn't have to. Without copyright, it seems to me that everything becomes copyleft by default. I could, for example, modify any piece of software I like, and legally distribute modified copies to others. Even if I didn't want to share my modifications with a larger community (or didn't want to do it for free), I couldn't stop it - someone else could do that for me. And as 'wolfgke points out, being open source doesn't matter much here.

wolfgke 7y ago
> You wouldn't have to. Without copyright, it seems to me that everything becomes copyleft by default. No, without copyright, you cannot force the other party to give you access to the original source code. BTW: There does not seem to exist an open source license that tries to emulate "no copyright"/"no IP". I.e. the license allows reverse engineering of all binaries derived from it virally, create modifications etc. and perhaps allows to use patents; but the license does not give you the right to demand access to the original source code.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  You argued upthread for reverse engineering. Binary is the source code, albeit in less convenient form. So maybe it wouldn't be strict copyleft, but close enough.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > Binary is the source code, albeit in less convenient form. At least the copyleft defenders would not agree.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    > Binary is the source code, albeit in less convenient form. So maybe it wouldn't be strict copyleft, but close enough. Buddy, you must never have worked with a decompiler. To say nothing of the source file structure and comments that are lost along the way.
    - naniwaduni 7y ago
      Instead we get tarball dumps with no change history.
      - kbutler 7y ago
        Tarball dumps are OK. The GPL doesn't require change history. Although it can be quite helpful, it would be quite hard to define universally - what level of history is required? It could range from "every character typed" to "changes from the last public release", which is essentially what we have now. GPL requires source code, which it defines as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." This prevents release of compilable-but-obfuscated code, or transpiler output, etc., or intentional removal of information required to build the software (though this clause causes GPL-compatibility issues with authenticated-build platforms).
        naniwaduni 7y ago
        The difference between sifting through tarball dumps and puzzling through binaries is essentially of degree, not kind. If there's a line to draw, perhaps it should have been at "intentional removal of information".
- fceccon 7y ago
  Employees can take source code with them when leaving a company and share it with others.

thenewnewguy 7y ago

In the existing legal system you can't. But we could write laws that allow this to be a thing (i.e. instead of the current situation of "you have full control over who can copy/redistribute your IP" it becomes "anyone can copy/redistribute your IP but you are allowed to specify X criteria including the requirement to redistribute source code").

zanny 7y ago

Something contemporary American culture has entirely forgot is the principle of a right to repair. Even in a post-IP world you can have it be law that anything sold must include its documentation, manuals, and thus in the case of software on the sold product, its source code. The fact so few realize how grossly unjust it is that most products sold today not only are undocumented but are intentionally obfuscated to make repair nigh impossible in order to drive replacement is the origin of the problem, though.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's even worse - this is something of a yesterday's problem. We have a growing trend of turning products into services, which not only prevents you from repairing things (which you now don't own), but also restricts ways you can use them and creates an aggressive form of planned obsolescence.