3 ms·

It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. Conflating the mea

It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. Conflating the meaning to the literal word would be an ungracious interpretation. With or without licensure, it's possible to own control over software use with a stand-alone, offline installation source if it lacks the technical means to deny such installation. Nuance in the mainstream landscape of ownership expectations of media changed in the 1980's when software became easily and widely reproducible. Copy-protection and DRM invaded software, then music, film, and finally (e)books as well. Much history will be lost due to an inability to archive works guarded by walled-gardens locked away by DRM.

badpun 4y ago
> It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. I disagree. There's a material difference here - you can only own things in one, total way (they're just yours and you can do with them whatever you please), while licences are granted on certain "fields of exploitation" (not sure if that's the exact term used in US laws - that's how it's called in my country). I.e. you can get licence to use software, but only in academic setting. Or (as is common) get licence to make copies of software, but not resale those copies etc. Or, get licence to use use software, but not to modify it (whereas you can obviously modify a thing that you own in a physical world). Etc, etc. In short, physical ownership and licencing of immaterial works are two different things, and they're only conflated by marketing people in software companies who know that their customers don't want to expend energy to understand those differences anyway, and, what's more important, a "BUY SOFTWARE X" button is much more enticing than a "OBTAIN LICENCE TO SOME LIMITED RIGHTS TO SOFTWARE X" button (which is what is really happening under the hood when we click "BUY").

badpun 4y ago

> It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. I disagree. There's a material difference here - you can only own things in one, total way (they're just yours and you can do with them whatever you please), while licences are granted on certain "fields of exploitation" (not sure if that's the exact term used in US laws - that's how it's called in my country). I.e. you can get licence to use software, but only in academic setting. Or (as is common) get licence to make copies of software, but not resale those copies etc. Or, get licence to use use software, but not to modify it (whereas you can obviously modify a thing that you own in a physical world). Etc, etc. In short, physical ownership and licencing of immaterial works are two different things, and they're only conflated by marketing people in software companies who know that their customers don't want to expend energy to understand those differences anyway, and, what's more important, a "BUY SOFTWARE X" button is much more enticing than a "OBTAIN LICENCE TO SOME LIMITED RIGHTS TO SOFTWARE X" button (which is what is really happening under the hood when we click "BUY").