3 ms·

You don't control copies of your code made under the terms of the irrevocable world-wide license you gave. You don't have to host it, but you can't stop other p

You don't control copies of your code made under the terms of the irrevocable world-wide license you gave. You don't have to host it, but you can't stop other people from doing so. Copies of your code are effectively no longer yours once you've licensed your code. So, essentially your code, as it was, is no longer yours. You don't own it in any meaningful way. Deal with that fact or don't post it in the first place.

api 7y ago
That's not true unless the license specifically transfers ownership or it's just public domain with no license at all. In the latter case jurisdictions differ in how they interpret that. I dislike the sentiment here. Open source was supposed to be a mutual gift culture, not a take culture.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  That you no longer own your code is effectively true. It is also not true. Of course, you likely still own the copyright - the sole legal right to distribute copies of the code. The thing is, copyleft - the prime principle under which open source and free software operate - is a brilliant legal hack; it makes owning the copyright essentially meaningless. You see, as owning the copyright means that only you have the right to distribute your code, free software/open source licences make that ownership meaningless by granting a licence to anyone who has the code the right to distribute the code - under certain terms, usually the same terms as under which they themselves were allowed to distribute the code. That is, you may still own the copyright on copyleft licensed code - but the distinction of owning that copyright is pointless because its purpose and benefit is replaced by that of mere possession and distribution. The copyright becomes effectively worthless and even more worthless if you incorporate other's copyleft licensed work into your own - because then you can no longer easily re-license it. Hence 'copyleft': it turns copyright on its head. Still, you're technically right; so, congratulations for that, I suppose. ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯ Open Source/Free Software cultures are mutual gift cultures. It's just that no take-backs are allowed. If they were the whole exercise would be pointless.
  - api 7y ago
    I was being legalistic. Technically you still "own" your copyright if you release something GPL, but the license grants certain rights that can't be revoked. So we're both correct.

api 7y ago

That's not true unless the license specifically transfers ownership or it's just public domain with no license at all. In the latter case jurisdictions differ in how they interpret that. I dislike the sentiment here. Open source was supposed to be a mutual gift culture, not a take culture.

justinjlynn 7y ago
That you no longer own your code is effectively true. It is also not true. Of course, you likely still own the copyright - the sole legal right to distribute copies of the code. The thing is, copyleft - the prime principle under which open source and free software operate - is a brilliant legal hack; it makes owning the copyright essentially meaningless. You see, as owning the copyright means that only you have the right to distribute your code, free software/open source licences make that ownership meaningless by granting a licence to anyone who has the code the right to distribute the code - under certain terms, usually the same terms as under which they themselves were allowed to distribute the code. That is, you may still own the copyright on copyleft licensed code - but the distinction of owning that copyright is pointless because its purpose and benefit is replaced by that of mere possession and distribution. The copyright becomes effectively worthless and even more worthless if you incorporate other's copyleft licensed work into your own - because then you can no longer easily re-license it. Hence 'copyleft': it turns copyright on its head. Still, you're technically right; so, congratulations for that, I suppose. ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯ Open Source/Free Software cultures are mutual gift cultures. It's just that no take-backs are allowed. If they were the whole exercise would be pointless.
- api 7y ago
  I was being legalistic. Technically you still "own" your copyright if you release something GPL, but the license grants certain rights that can't be revoked. So we're both correct.