3 ms·
IMO that's exactly being hypocritical. Why book users should be prevented from modifying and redistributing them if software users are allowed this right? That
by vgrichina 15y ago
IMO that's exactly being hypocritical. Why book users should be prevented from modifying and redistributing them if software users are allowed this right? That simply makes no sense.
- _delirium 15y agoHis argument, which seems pretty reasonable to me, is that software is a tool, whereas books are expression, and sees a stronger argument for it being important that people be able to modify their own tools (he does include some kinds of "tool-like" books, like instruction manuals, in that category). I don't think it's useful to charge people with "hypocrisy" as an attempt to preemptively shut down debate about whether different classes of works ought to be treated differently, in any case.
- deadcyclo 15y agoAFAIK, based on the last talk by RMS I attended he condoned copyright on works of fiction only, not on works of fact. So no copyright on manuals, textbooks, scientific articles, etc.