3 ms·
I think the gp post was not suggesting “get rid of copyright and leave oss unprotected” - by “OSS should be the default” i read that it should continue to be pr
by kennywinker 5y ago
I think the gp post was not suggesting “get rid of copyright and leave oss unprotected” - by “OSS should be the default” i read that it should continue to be protected while copyright is removed. It would not be hard for new laws to enshrine + protect OSS licenses
- kube-system 5y ago> it should continue to be protected while copyright is removed. It would not be hard for new laws to enshrine + protect OSS licenses Those things are logical opposites. If someone has a right to place any conditions at all on the way people copy their software, that is a copyright. Maybe they meant to suggest copyright reform. I make this point because people often like that GPL forces republishing of derivative works. This is an exercise of copyright, not a lack of it.
- kennywinker 5y agoThey're only opposite goals in as much as you see copyright and open source licenses as synonymous. I'm not a lawyer, but there are other forms of IP protections that are not copyright (patents, trademarks, etc). Seems like a new form of IP protection could be created to protect open source - i.e. "if someone says you can only modify this code if you re-share it, it is illegal to modify the code without re-sharing".
- kube-system 5y agoI understand what you are saying, but that simply is copyright under a different name. You are suggesting that someone should have the rights to control how others may copy their work: copyright.