5 ms·

> <anti-freedom rant> I suppose you’re not a big fan of right to repair either then? Nobody is forcing you to write or use free software. However, freedom is

by User23 3y ago

> <anti-freedom rant> I suppose you’re not a big fan of right to repair either then? Nobody is forcing you to write or use free software. However, freedom is intrinsically valuable, and there’s a huge difference between being able to control your own computing hardware vs reading second rate children’s books. > I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world That’s a pretty thought, but nobody does. Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic?

feoren 3y ago
> <sweeping generalization> I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then? > right to repair This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit. I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end. > Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic? Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?
- User23 3y ago
  > <some straw men> Computer programs are radically different from literary and artistic works. It’s unsurprising that laws that were designed for paper books are less than a great fit for software. Indeed, software probably shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection at all. Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. > Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma? In that case you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative.
  - feoren 3y ago
    > Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. Yet Recipe Books (particular curated collections of recipes) are afforded copyright protection. If your argument is that copyright should not be given to general algorithms like the FFT, new methods of fast matrix multiplication, the Carmack Hack, etc., then I actually completely agree with you. In all art, there is a level too granular to be copyrightable. In music, it's chord progressions and simple, obvious melodies. In books, it's common idioms and simple sentences like "Terrified, he ran." In programming, it's basic/common algorithms, design patterns, and commonly used control flow. None of that should be afforded copyright protection, and I hate seeing the frivolous lawsuits that come up in all those fields based on these trivial similarities. Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable. For what it's worth: IMO code should not be eligible for patent protection. It's actually possible for someone to dislike software patents, support right to repair, and also support copyright protection for programmers. > you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is.
    - User23 3y ago
      > Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable. Mathematical and logical formulas also aren't subject to copyright, so your Haskell argument doesn't hold water even if we do allow that functional code somehow isn't clearly reducible to a set of instructions. The correct solution is to come up with some kind of legal regime that's actually designed for software rather than trying to torture a law for printing presses into saying something meaningful and equitable about software. > It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is. What's outrageous about the statement that software that I am free to modify has greater value than software that performs the same function but that I am not free to modify?

by User23 3y ago

feoren 3y ago

> <sweeping generalization> I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then? > right to repair This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit. I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end. > Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic? Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?

User23 3y ago
> <some straw men> Computer programs are radically different from literary and artistic works. It’s unsurprising that laws that were designed for paper books are less than a great fit for software. Indeed, software probably shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection at all. Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. > Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma? In that case you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative.
- feoren 3y ago
  > Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. Yet Recipe Books (particular curated collections of recipes) are afforded copyright protection. If your argument is that copyright should not be given to general algorithms like the FFT, new methods of fast matrix multiplication, the Carmack Hack, etc., then I actually completely agree with you. In all art, there is a level too granular to be copyrightable. In music, it's chord progressions and simple, obvious melodies. In books, it's common idioms and simple sentences like "Terrified, he ran." In programming, it's basic/common algorithms, design patterns, and commonly used control flow. None of that should be afforded copyright protection, and I hate seeing the frivolous lawsuits that come up in all those fields based on these trivial similarities. Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable. For what it's worth: IMO code should not be eligible for patent protection. It's actually possible for someone to dislike software patents, support right to repair, and also support copyright protection for programmers. > you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is.
  - User23 3y ago
    > Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable. Mathematical and logical formulas also aren't subject to copyright, so your Haskell argument doesn't hold water even if we do allow that functional code somehow isn't clearly reducible to a set of instructions. The correct solution is to come up with some kind of legal regime that's actually designed for software rather than trying to torture a law for printing presses into saying something meaningful and equitable about software. > It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is. What's outrageous about the statement that software that I am free to modify has greater value than software that performs the same function but that I am not free to modify?