3 ms·

I completely agree with you. However, on the point of copyrights opposition of free software, even though I agree with you, you will find the most surprising o

I completely agree with you. However, on the point of copyrights opposition of free software, even though I agree with you, you will find the most surprising of people disagreeing. I, holding the opinion that all copyright is obsolete, once foolishly tried to debate RMS at a conference. For some free software advocates, copyright is essential to the existence of copyleft and copyleft is essential for free software.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
It's not surprising that Stallman disagrees. He depends on copyright. The entire free software movement he started depends on copyright. The GPL depends on copyright. Like all copyrighted works, free software suffers from the exact same infringement problems. People violate licenses every day. Nobody is gonna go to court over it. The best people can hope for is for some organization dedicated to GPL enforcement to do it for them. Resources are scarce so they're only gonna enforce the GPL strategically for important projects and against important violators. I don't agree with Stallman on this subject. He depends on copyright but at the same time condemns the hardware features designed by the copyright industry to enforce copyright. I feel like I can't believe in both at the same time.
- foerbert 6y ago
  I probably lean more towards your side of things (or even just outright agree with you), though I can see how RMS's position isn't inherently inconsistent. There's a difference between the legal construct of copyright and the technical enforcement measures foisted on buyers or computing hardware. Wanting to rely on the legal construct while avoiding the later strikes me as excessively idealistic... but we're talking about RMS here. It's not exactly analogous, but it seems somewhat similar to supporting enforceable stop signs and being against using a camera to do so.
- jfim 6y ago
  They're not irreconcilable positions though. One can support authors having rights over the distribution of their works, while believing at the same time that the different DRM technologies are an overreach.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I think a good compromise is agreeing with contracts between entities and not believing in copyright. If I purchase a digital good and agree not to redistribute it, I should be liable for breach of contract. If someone already distributed something and I download it I have no agreement with the manufacturer and I'm free to do whatever you want. You can see it like this: if you sell so many copies of your product that you can't keep track of who's breaching your redistribution contract, that's a market "tax" for selling passively so well. I don't see why, as a society, we should automate this legal process for big corporations selling products and leave it for small businesses that have a client who is not paying. This is happening uniquely because they can use a part of their profits for lawmaking.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

It's not surprising that Stallman disagrees. He depends on copyright. The entire free software movement he started depends on copyright. The GPL depends on copyright. Like all copyrighted works, free software suffers from the exact same infringement problems. People violate licenses every day. Nobody is gonna go to court over it. The best people can hope for is for some organization dedicated to GPL enforcement to do it for them. Resources are scarce so they're only gonna enforce the GPL strategically for important projects and against important violators. I don't agree with Stallman on this subject. He depends on copyright but at the same time condemns the hardware features designed by the copyright industry to enforce copyright. I feel like I can't believe in both at the same time.

foerbert 6y ago
I probably lean more towards your side of things (or even just outright agree with you), though I can see how RMS's position isn't inherently inconsistent. There's a difference between the legal construct of copyright and the technical enforcement measures foisted on buyers or computing hardware. Wanting to rely on the legal construct while avoiding the later strikes me as excessively idealistic... but we're talking about RMS here. It's not exactly analogous, but it seems somewhat similar to supporting enforceable stop signs and being against using a camera to do so.
jfim 6y ago
They're not irreconcilable positions though. One can support authors having rights over the distribution of their works, while believing at the same time that the different DRM technologies are an overreach.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
I think a good compromise is agreeing with contracts between entities and not believing in copyright. If I purchase a digital good and agree not to redistribute it, I should be liable for breach of contract. If someone already distributed something and I download it I have no agreement with the manufacturer and I'm free to do whatever you want. You can see it like this: if you sell so many copies of your product that you can't keep track of who's breaching your redistribution contract, that's a market "tax" for selling passively so well. I don't see why, as a society, we should automate this legal process for big corporations selling products and leave it for small businesses that have a client who is not paying. This is happening uniquely because they can use a part of their profits for lawmaking.