3 ms·

A point of contention for me is the IEEE Code of Conduct [1] whose point 5.e. can be summarized as "I will not infringe the intellectual property of others". If

A point of contention for me is the IEEE Code of Conduct [1] whose point 5.e. can be summarized as "I will not infringe the intellectual property of others". If you are critical of copyright itself (something not unusual among hackers) then the IEEE may not be the association for you. [10 https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/code-of-conduct.html https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/code-of-cond...

userbinator 2y ago
Intellectual property, more like imaginary property.
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
That seems to be a small minority in software. 2% of Github repos are Unlicense licensed, 16% are something else I don't know and for everything else, the authors have chosen to use copyright to restrict how others can use it in some way, even if it's just keeping their name on it. [1] https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...
- teddyh 2y ago
  One can be against something and still make use of it. Don’t be ”Mister Gotcha”: <https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/>
  - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
    Usually that only makes sense if other people's use of it makes it harder for you not to. For example, you can want a 4-day working week but still work 5 days because you'll lose your job to a 5-dayer if you don't. But if it was forced on everyone, you'd be happy. Violating other people's copyrights while still exploiting your own probably means you just want to pirate stuff for your own selfish reasons. If you were against copyright protections in general, you wouldn't be choosing MIT or GPL for your open source code.
    - teddyh 2y ago
      > If you were against copyright protections in general, you wouldn't be choosing MIT or GPL for your open source code. This is demonstrably false. IIRC, the creators of the GPL explicitly argue that the GPL is a tool to survive in a world with copyright.

userbinator 2y ago

Intellectual property, more like imaginary property.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago

That seems to be a small minority in software. 2% of Github repos are Unlicense licensed, 16% are something else I don't know and for everything else, the authors have chosen to use copyright to restrict how others can use it in some way, even if it's just keeping their name on it. [1] https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...

teddyh 2y ago
One can be against something and still make use of it. Don’t be ”Mister Gotcha”: <https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/>
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  Usually that only makes sense if other people's use of it makes it harder for you not to. For example, you can want a 4-day working week but still work 5 days because you'll lose your job to a 5-dayer if you don't. But if it was forced on everyone, you'd be happy. Violating other people's copyrights while still exploiting your own probably means you just want to pirate stuff for your own selfish reasons. If you were against copyright protections in general, you wouldn't be choosing MIT or GPL for your open source code.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    > If you were against copyright protections in general, you wouldn't be choosing MIT or GPL for your open source code. This is demonstrably false. IIRC, the creators of the GPL explicitly argue that the GPL is a tool to survive in a world with copyright.