8 ms·
> and forget that copyright also applies to software code (something they don’t want eliminated or shortened). We don't forget at all. That's, like, half the s
by Kamq 3y ago
> and forget that copyright also applies to software code (something they don’t want eliminated or shortened).
We don't forget at all. That's, like, half the shit we argue about.
Get rid of it. It'll make the world a better place, and those of us that write code will be able to get so much more done without having to worry about this stuff.
- bruce511 3y agoYou position your argument as a consumer, not a producer. Under your suggestion I can take the GNU source code, add some stuff, fix some bugs, and release a binary-only version (presumably for money). Under your suggestion, authors would have no control over their work at sell. Uou made z great text editor? Great, I'm using it in my proprietary closed-source IDE. Under your suggestion there would be no balance. Without the stick of virility there can be no carrot of "publish our source code". In the long run, the lack of copyright would hurt OSS since much of OSS is funded, directly or indirectly by commercial closed-source software.
- Kamq 3y ago> You position your argument as a consumer, not a producer. I am both. > Under your suggestion I can take the GNU source code, add some stuff, fix some bugs, and release a binary-only version (presumably for money). Sure, but you can't copyright the binary either then. In fact, get rid of intellectual property in general. It's kinda BS, since there's no natural scarcity. > Under your suggestion, authors would have no control over their work at sell. Correct. I think my previous sentence also covers this.