3 ms·

I think that it is precisely because you don't want to use the law to enforce your preferences that you should use copyleft in general and the AGPL in particula

I think that it is precisely because you don't want to use the law to enforce your preferences that you should use copyleft in general and the AGPL in particular. The real problem is copyright law. Copyright lasts for an absurdly long time, the DMCA which makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection is a threat to general-purpose computing, damages if you lose a copyright case can be astronomical and bankrupt anyone, copyright trolls sue people using stuff instead of using the copyrighted material to make anything themselves, etc. Copyleft and the AGPL are a judo move that uses the strength of the copyright system against it. If enough stuff were under a strong copyleft license, maybe corporations wouldn't be so enthusiastic about the copyright system. Maybe they would rediscover the benefits of the public domain, since copyright expiring would also liberate copylefted content + software. Perhaps they wouldn't actually help reduce copyright, but they might not work so hard to stop efforts to do so. I believe that the path to a stronger public domain leads through copyleft + the AGPL. Put your software in the public domain by reducing the power of copyright law, by shortening copyright term length, by reducing the number of things covered by copyright, by putting everything in the public domain, not just the software you control.

burntsushi 6y ago
As I've said to others in this comment thread, yes, I'm well aware of this argument. But it's a tangent from what I'm saying I think. I've had this position for well over 10 years. I know why copyleft exists, its philosophical history and how it's intended to use the copyright system against itself. But I disagree with doing that because I want government out of the business of intellectual property altogether and I don't agree with using the copyright system against itself to do it. Fundamentally, I'm opposed to the ownership of ideas at an ideological level, so I wish to relinquish as much of that ownership as I can in today's system. And that's public domain. We could have a longer discussion, but like I said, this is totally distinct from the argument I'm making that it's not "common sense" to consider laws and ethics the same.
- skyfaller 6y ago
  Apologies for the digression, I agree that law and morality are quite distinct. I just think refusing to use copyleft is unwise on a strategic level. It smells like unilateral disarmament to me. If a warlord is rampaging through the countryside putting villages to the sword, it's not good enough to say, "Hey, I don't agree with stabbing people to death." It's great if you have a plan to stop the pillaging without stabbing anyone, but if you don't, then you need to consider plans that do involve stabbing, or at the very least fielding some stabbers. There may be times when all courses of action involve moral compromise, but inaction always favors the oppressor. Do you have a plan for fighting copyright without using copyright? If yes, then I withdraw my objection. If not, then I ask you to consider whether using copyleft is better than nothing. The oppressive copyright system will continue doing damage without you.
  - burntsushi 6y ago
    I've never claimed to be a good activist. But when it comes to matters like these, when fighting deeply entrenched systems, I think they usually only fix themselves after a massive correction and that correction usually involves a lot of pain and misery. So I settle for education and generally passive resistance. I don't think copyleft on its own is going to fix anything. Otherwise, I just try to behave in a way that is consistent with my ethics, while balancing practical matters. In this case, that means opting out of monopoly copyright interest as much as I can. And can I just say, I really wish it were possible to have discussions about why ought to be without getting dragged into a tangent about how to get there. Like, we've gone from my taking issue with equating laws and ethics all the way to a critique of my weak activism in pursuit of demolishing the IP regime.
- young_unixer 6y ago
  I agree with you 100%. I thought I was the only one who held that opinion.

burntsushi 6y ago

As I've said to others in this comment thread, yes, I'm well aware of this argument. But it's a tangent from what I'm saying I think. I've had this position for well over 10 years. I know why copyleft exists, its philosophical history and how it's intended to use the copyright system against itself. But I disagree with doing that because I want government out of the business of intellectual property altogether and I don't agree with using the copyright system against itself to do it. Fundamentally, I'm opposed to the ownership of ideas at an ideological level, so I wish to relinquish as much of that ownership as I can in today's system. And that's public domain. We could have a longer discussion, but like I said, this is totally distinct from the argument I'm making that it's not "common sense" to consider laws and ethics the same.

skyfaller 6y ago
Apologies for the digression, I agree that law and morality are quite distinct. I just think refusing to use copyleft is unwise on a strategic level. It smells like unilateral disarmament to me. If a warlord is rampaging through the countryside putting villages to the sword, it's not good enough to say, "Hey, I don't agree with stabbing people to death." It's great if you have a plan to stop the pillaging without stabbing anyone, but if you don't, then you need to consider plans that do involve stabbing, or at the very least fielding some stabbers. There may be times when all courses of action involve moral compromise, but inaction always favors the oppressor. Do you have a plan for fighting copyright without using copyright? If yes, then I withdraw my objection. If not, then I ask you to consider whether using copyleft is better than nothing. The oppressive copyright system will continue doing damage without you.
- burntsushi 6y ago
  I've never claimed to be a good activist. But when it comes to matters like these, when fighting deeply entrenched systems, I think they usually only fix themselves after a massive correction and that correction usually involves a lot of pain and misery. So I settle for education and generally passive resistance. I don't think copyleft on its own is going to fix anything. Otherwise, I just try to behave in a way that is consistent with my ethics, while balancing practical matters. In this case, that means opting out of monopoly copyright interest as much as I can. And can I just say, I really wish it were possible to have discussions about why ought to be without getting dragged into a tangent about how to get there. Like, we've gone from my taking issue with equating laws and ethics all the way to a critique of my weak activism in pursuit of demolishing the IP regime.
young_unixer 6y ago
I agree with you 100%. I thought I was the only one who held that opinion.