3 ms·

> Software licenses matter. Copyright matters. Some of us think is detrimental to humanity at whole.

Y_Y 5y ago
Why not both? Copyright certainly matters. It's a big deal legally and economicically all over the world. Suppose that it's just a bad idea and shouldn't exist. Does that mean that I should release my code into the public domain? I think you could make a good case that even being totally opposed to copyright morally or pragmatically or otherwise, given that it currently is enforced in many places it's worthwhile to play along. For example, some people would prefer a world without copyright, but GPL their code, because it might prevent a greater evil.
- dcow 5y ago
  Exactly. The copyleft side of me says you can't copyright instructions on how to bake a cake, or a fast route across a city, or a beautiful way to display colored pixels in a grid, or an efficient compression scheme for video data... because it's all intellectual, and not physical, "property". But society disagrees so a nice hack on copyright that perpetually keeps any of the above from being stolen and locked down by profit seeking psychopaths just early enough to the scene to make a buck, seems like the best interim solution.
  - runnerup 5y ago
    I really appreciate yours and parents line of reasoning.
sangnoir 5y ago
True, but while they exist,they should be evenly applied
warkdarrior 5y ago
If you abolish copyright, that will only make it easier for for-profit corporations to use FOSS. There will be nothing stopping them from using FOSS, unless people stop sharing their code altogether.
- syshum 5y ago
  While True, if you abolish copyright then there is nothing preventing me from Installing Microsoft office on as many machines as I want never paying Microsoft a dime....
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Not at all. You are confusing copyright with theft of service or other stuff. Closed source benefit from the secretiveness of compiled software.
  - reedciccio 5y ago
    This is a common misconception: without copyright, Microsoft would still have many legal means to force you to pay for every copy of windows, from contract law to patent licenses. Without copyright there would not be free software and copyleft as we know it.
    - syshum 5y ago
      There is zero mechanism under patent law to enforce what you are referring to. Patent law is about selling items not consuming them so they could prevent me from selling a clone of office but they cannot prevent me from installing office as far as contract law that would be between two parties so if I obtained a copy of office somewhere and I did not have a contract with Microsoft nothing I would not be violating a contract with Microsoft copyright is the only mechanism they use to stop unauthorized distribution of their software

Y_Y 5y ago

Why not both? Copyright certainly matters. It's a big deal legally and economicically all over the world. Suppose that it's just a bad idea and shouldn't exist. Does that mean that I should release my code into the public domain? I think you could make a good case that even being totally opposed to copyright morally or pragmatically or otherwise, given that it currently is enforced in many places it's worthwhile to play along. For example, some people would prefer a world without copyright, but GPL their code, because it might prevent a greater evil.

dcow 5y ago
Exactly. The copyleft side of me says you can't copyright instructions on how to bake a cake, or a fast route across a city, or a beautiful way to display colored pixels in a grid, or an efficient compression scheme for video data... because it's all intellectual, and not physical, "property". But society disagrees so a nice hack on copyright that perpetually keeps any of the above from being stolen and locked down by profit seeking psychopaths just early enough to the scene to make a buck, seems like the best interim solution.
- runnerup 5y ago
  I really appreciate yours and parents line of reasoning.

sangnoir 5y ago

True, but while they exist,they should be evenly applied

warkdarrior 5y ago

If you abolish copyright, that will only make it easier for for-profit corporations to use FOSS. There will be nothing stopping them from using FOSS, unless people stop sharing their code altogether.

syshum 5y ago
While True, if you abolish copyright then there is nothing preventing me from Installing Microsoft office on as many machines as I want never paying Microsoft a dime....
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Not at all. You are confusing copyright with theft of service or other stuff. Closed source benefit from the secretiveness of compiled software.
- reedciccio 5y ago
  This is a common misconception: without copyright, Microsoft would still have many legal means to force you to pay for every copy of windows, from contract law to patent licenses. Without copyright there would not be free software and copyleft as we know it.
  - syshum 5y ago
    There is zero mechanism under patent law to enforce what you are referring to. Patent law is about selling items not consuming them so they could prevent me from selling a clone of office but they cannot prevent me from installing office as far as contract law that would be between two parties so if I obtained a copy of office somewhere and I did not have a contract with Microsoft nothing I would not be violating a contract with Microsoft copyright is the only mechanism they use to stop unauthorized distribution of their software