3 ms·
In this case those laws are enforcing capitalist-style property rights, which are not limited to profit-seeking associations. The creators, or their assignees,
by hirundo 5y ago
In this case those laws are enforcing capitalist-style property rights, which are not limited to profit-seeking associations. The creators, or their assignees, own the enforced rights, and among their property rights is the power to distribute those rights as they see fit. Socialist property rights are more likely to be assigned to the community, with less regard for the rights of the creators. A socialist OSS society may still have a GPL, but choosing that license would be less the right of the developers and more the right of political representatives.
- jqpabc123 5y agoSocialist property rights are more likely to be assigned to the community... You mean like the "open source community"?
- hirundo 5y agoImagine if the open source community, rather than the specific developers of that repo, got to choose the license. Is that an improvement?
- jqpabc123 5y agoMost who use and contribute to Open Source have no choice with regard to license. That choice has already been made by "the community". And once made, these licenses often require the developer to assign copyright for their contribution to "the community". These "viral" licenses can also infect any subsequent project that tries to makes use of any code. The intent and effect here is pretty clear --- individual property rights are being re-assigned to "the community".
- hirundo 5y agoAs a contributor, do you wish to seize that choice from the founders/owners of the repo? If you could, wouldn't that make you somewhat less likely to start your own project, that you can reign over? If your right to vote on the license was a percentage of your contribution to the codebase, I'd expect that repo owners would be far less willing to merge outside pull requests.