7 ms·

The problem with this article is that it assumes that Stallman's intent would lead to the end result that Stallman wants, and that what Stallman wants is good.

The problem with this article is that it assumes that Stallman's intent would lead to the end result that Stallman wants, and that what Stallman wants is good. I believe this is wrong, either in one way or the other. As far as I understand it, Stallman wants users to have the right to hack on software that they use and to be protected from bad software because of that ability to hack, like right to repair protects consumers on the hardware side. Well, if GitHub Copilot can wash away copyright, companies will quickly realize that opening their source just allows their competitors to wipe away whatever edge they get from their software by keeping changes secret. They will use that reason to close more of their software to preserve their trade secrets. In other words, if copyright wouldn't apply to software anymore, then companies would protect their software by trade secrets instead, leading to less open source, which would lead to less user freedom to hack, especially since such trade secret controls might be used against users themselves. So I would argue that if Stallman wants copyright to disappear, he wants the wrong thing because it conflicts with his goal of user freedom, and Copilot is a problem. If he doesn't, then he will absolutely care about Copilot because Copilot will still be a problem since licenses use copyright to protect users. I can't stress that amount. Our copyright on our software protects our users, and as such, we should guard it jealously. Not for our sake, but for theirs.

joe_the_user 5y ago
Plus there's nothing in Copilot that would weaken the copyright of closed source software - pirated copies of Windows and first-run movies would remain exactly as illegal as before. The "weaken copyright" claim is some bad-reasoning I'm groping for a word to describe. It's as if Google stole stuff from several small companies and someone said "at least it weakens 'the corporations'".
- ghoward 5y ago
  This. Very much this.
mjg59 5y ago
What trade secret controls do you imagine could be used against users? Once you've lawfully obtained a piece of software, trade secret law doesn't protect against reverse engineering.
- ghoward 5y ago
  It does if you have "agreed" to a EULA that forbids reverse engineering. I don't know if you know this, but there are already EULA's that can reverse engineering.
  - mjg59 5y ago
    If copyright didn't apply to software, why would you agree to the EULA?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Do we have a choice with some of the software we have to use?
      - mjg59 5y ago
        What law would they use to stop you? Just modify the binary to skip the agreement. If they don't hold copyright over the code then you're not breaking the law in doing so.
        ghoward 5y ago
        I will be breaking contract law. EULA's still hold teeth without copyright because they fall under contract law, not copyright. Edit: I would like to add something about licenses and contract law. While FOSS licenses can also be contracts (https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html#its-not-clear-what-mit-and-bsd-are-legally https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...), if copyright does not apply, then users (and companies) do not have to accept the license in order to use the software because they already have access to it since the source is open. However, with closed source software, the user does not get access until after they accept the EULA. This means that full contract law applies to the user, regardless of copyright on software. That is why closed source software wins if copyright does not apply: because it makes an end run around copyright anyway.
fragmede 5y ago
The GPL needs copyright to work correctly, otherwise companies could legally take GPL'd code and resell it, sans source, and not violate the law. (Arguing IP on the Internet? what is this, the 90's)
- scotty79 5y ago
  GPL doesn't need copyright. It only needs the ability to say "by using this software you agree to ...". And what follows doesn't need to be completely unrestricted. You might ban for example all clauses that restrict copying this piece of software in any way or using it as is.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    the ability to de facto say "by using this software you agree to ..." is based on copyright - because anybody can refuse the license, saying "by using this you agree to X" is technically a lie (by the way, by reading this comment you agree to send me $1000 worth of BTC within 10 days), "using this" does not make you enter a binding contract, it's just that if you refuse to accept the license, you're infringing on copyright. The licenses are accepted because of threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit. If there was no copyright, people would be free to ignore all such license offers as they would not require a license in the first place.
    - b3morales 5y ago
      Indeed, this is stated quite explicitly in the GPL itself: > ...nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
scotty79 5y ago
> licenses use copyright to protect users From too much freedom I presume? Or what did you mean exactly? > if copyright wouldn't apply to software anymore, then companies would protect their software by trade secrets instead As if they didn't do that already? What part of Photoshop is not secret? Or ar least wasn't at some point until people reverse engineered it? Copyright is the last resort. The first and most solid line of defense for commercial software is alwas secrecy, of source code, of file formats, of binaries in case of server side software, of anything they can keep secret. > leading to less open source Why would that lead to open source since companies keeping their software secret, closed source and copyright protected was exactly what lead to open source in the first place?
- ghoward 5y ago
  > From too much freedom I presume? Or what did you mean exactly? From things like what Audacity did: adding spyware or other bloat that serves the company rather than the user. Also from being taken advantage of, as right to repair has shown. If we have right to repair, it's harder for companies to engage in monopolistic practices. Open source does the same thing for software. > Why would that lead to less open source since companies keeping their software secret, closed source and copyright protected was exactly what lead to open source in the first place? Because right now, if a company uses open source code in their code, then they will sometimes contribute back to the original software. Without copyright, they won't because their change might reveal something about their file format or something like that. It's because of copyright that companies have played somewhat nice when using FOSS. Without it, there is no incentive to.

joe_the_user 5y ago

Plus there's nothing in Copilot that would weaken the copyright of closed source software - pirated copies of Windows and first-run movies would remain exactly as illegal as before. The "weaken copyright" claim is some bad-reasoning I'm groping for a word to describe. It's as if Google stole stuff from several small companies and someone said "at least it weakens 'the corporations'".

ghoward 5y ago
This. Very much this.

mjg59 5y ago

What trade secret controls do you imagine could be used against users? Once you've lawfully obtained a piece of software, trade secret law doesn't protect against reverse engineering.

ghoward 5y ago
It does if you have "agreed" to a EULA that forbids reverse engineering. I don't know if you know this, but there are already EULA's that can reverse engineering.
- mjg59 5y ago
  If copyright didn't apply to software, why would you agree to the EULA?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Do we have a choice with some of the software we have to use?
    - mjg59 5y ago
      What law would they use to stop you? Just modify the binary to skip the agreement. If they don't hold copyright over the code then you're not breaking the law in doing so.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        I will be breaking contract law. EULA's still hold teeth without copyright because they fall under contract law, not copyright. Edit: I would like to add something about licenses and contract law. While FOSS licenses can also be contracts (https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html#its-not-clear-what-mit-and-bsd-are-legally https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...), if copyright does not apply, then users (and companies) do not have to accept the license in order to use the software because they already have access to it since the source is open. However, with closed source software, the user does not get access until after they accept the EULA. This means that full contract law applies to the user, regardless of copyright on software. That is why closed source software wins if copyright does not apply: because it makes an end run around copyright anyway.

fragmede 5y ago

The GPL needs copyright to work correctly, otherwise companies could legally take GPL'd code and resell it, sans source, and not violate the law. (Arguing IP on the Internet? what is this, the 90's)

scotty79 5y ago
GPL doesn't need copyright. It only needs the ability to say "by using this software you agree to ...". And what follows doesn't need to be completely unrestricted. You might ban for example all clauses that restrict copying this piece of software in any way or using it as is.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  the ability to de facto say "by using this software you agree to ..." is based on copyright - because anybody can refuse the license, saying "by using this you agree to X" is technically a lie (by the way, by reading this comment you agree to send me $1000 worth of BTC within 10 days), "using this" does not make you enter a binding contract, it's just that if you refuse to accept the license, you're infringing on copyright. The licenses are accepted because of threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit. If there was no copyright, people would be free to ignore all such license offers as they would not require a license in the first place.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Indeed, this is stated quite explicitly in the GPL itself: > ...nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

scotty79 5y ago

> licenses use copyright to protect users From too much freedom I presume? Or what did you mean exactly? > if copyright wouldn't apply to software anymore, then companies would protect their software by trade secrets instead As if they didn't do that already? What part of Photoshop is not secret? Or ar least wasn't at some point until people reverse engineered it? Copyright is the last resort. The first and most solid line of defense for commercial software is alwas secrecy, of source code, of file formats, of binaries in case of server side software, of anything they can keep secret. > leading to less open source Why would that lead to open source since companies keeping their software secret, closed source and copyright protected was exactly what lead to open source in the first place?

ghoward 5y ago
> From too much freedom I presume? Or what did you mean exactly? From things like what Audacity did: adding spyware or other bloat that serves the company rather than the user. Also from being taken advantage of, as right to repair has shown. If we have right to repair, it's harder for companies to engage in monopolistic practices. Open source does the same thing for software. > Why would that lead to less open source since companies keeping their software secret, closed source and copyright protected was exactly what lead to open source in the first place? Because right now, if a company uses open source code in their code, then they will sometimes contribute back to the original software. Without copyright, they won't because their change might reveal something about their file format or something like that. It's because of copyright that companies have played somewhat nice when using FOSS. Without it, there is no incentive to.