4 ms·

The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail. If you believe information shou

The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail. If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong. The fact that the proprietary code is based on GPL code just shows that the ex-Honey folks are hypocrites: they're trying to use copyright to control their code, but breaking the same rules in the way they reuse others' code.

coldpie 2y ago
> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail. > If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft No, this is absolutely incorrect. GPL requires copyright (or similar mechanism) to function. Without copyright, anyone could take the GPL'd code and release a compiled binary without releasing source. Releasing the source is the "payment" for being granted a license to copy the original code; without releasing the source, you are in violation of the author's copyright. No one who wants to use the GPL to protect their and their users' rights would advocate for eliminating copyright, because the GPL's goals cannot be achieved without copyright.
- tikhonj 2y ago
  The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. Code being copyrightable would just be getting in the way at that point. But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern copyright regime.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    > The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. Hmm okay yeah, I buy that. Good rebuttal, I retract my comment :)
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    It's also possible such a law (in the US) would violate the first amendment (being "compelled speech").
    - f1refly 2y ago
      Laws are just made up by people, we can make up new ones if we want.
    - tikhonj 2y ago
      I mean, there's a reasonable argument that large swathes of current copyright law in the US also violate the First Amendment. I haven't read it yet, but the book No Law from Stanford University Press[1] makes that argument and has been on my to-read list for a while. [1]: https://www.sup.org/books/law/no-law https://www.sup.org/books/law/no-law
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Do food nutrition labels violate the first amendment, being compelled speech?
    - globular-toast 2y ago
      But nobody is compelling anyone to write and release software. It's no different to requiring food to include a list of ingredients or products to include safety standards references etc.
- mathstuf 2y ago
  One can still want much looser copyright. For example, 14 years by default, pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time (as compensation for stealing from the public domain). At least I'm willing to call extended copyright terms stealing if we're going to call format shifting and other personal use cases stealing.
  - iamacyborg 2y ago
    > stealing from the public domain How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?
    - freedomben 2y ago
      > Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck? I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.
      - iamacyborg 2y ago
        No I agree it’s a poor argument when looked at either extreme. I think most folks would likely agree that some taxation is beneficial, albeit not a 100% tax rate, which would be broadly analogous to the argument that copyright shouldn’t exist.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        The person you replied to wasn't making the argument that copyright shouldn't exist. Their argument is in line with "some taxation" where it goes into the public domain after a while, and they only (potentially) called extended copyright terms stealing from the public domain.
    - exe34 2y ago
      > Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck? don't you benefit from taxes?
- belorn 2y ago
  We can see with current legal situation around AI learning and data scraping how companies and their lawyers has starting to work around the issue of not having data protected by copyright. The general alternatives to copyright seems to be TOS and contract law, except for Hollywood which went and drafted their own special law. Downloading software from a server means you need to have access to that server, possible through an account. There is also a fair amount of precedence covering the enforceability of TOS and limitations of server access, especially when a company earn profit on intentionally ignoring them. Contract law has its own issue, and copyright is generally seen as much easier to understand and enforce, but if contract law can be used to control how software and data is used after a user has downloaded it then it could be used for something like GPL.
jjmarr 2y ago
Copyright itself is arguably theft sponsored by the state, because information can naturally be freely used/shared by all of humanity. Creating property rights in information reduces the collective knowledge of humanity (the commons), because now information can't be shared. The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such. I don't agree with this maximalist approach because many forms of knowledge wouldn't be created without a financial incentive. But there's many niches in the economy where free software creates greater economic benefit than a proprietary solution.
- freedomben 2y ago
  > The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such. This does not match my understanding. My understanding is that the goal of the GPL is to weaponize the copyright system to enforce copyleft. Many creators and supporters of the GPL do oppose IP laws (at least in their current form) but the goal specifically of the GPL isn't to destroy copyright, it's to weaponize it to accomplish higher purposes.
Brian_K_White 2y ago
The gpl sets terms, employing the right to set terms. The fact that those terms are not for money is the implimentation detail. The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not. Just like the normal terms for money, your choice is you can take it according to the terms, or leave it. Not just take it and ignore the terms. It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free.
- exe34 2y ago
  > It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free stealing from the commons, basically.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    No, absolutely not the commons. If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation. If you want to use their code, you have to join the company. Fortunately for you, all you have to do to join the company is to agree to use the same license for you own code as the company already does. If you agree to that, you are free to use any or all of the code "owned" by the company. However, if you do not agree to the company's terms - i.e. you wish to use a different license - then you are not a part of the company and have no legal right to use any of the company's code. You may of course continue with your own software, but you cannot benefit from the amassed resource that is the company's own code (though of course reading it is allowed).
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something. There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park. The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't fence off a part for yourself and start operating your tire-burning business in it. The body of people who either first donated it or the tax payers who voted for it set some terms for usage, and now you can either enjoy the goods under those terms or not. But what's interesting is how some people have this kind of reaction and try to come up with this kind of argument over the act of being generous. Are you sure GPL isn't even worse than you said? Why be so nice? Are you sure it doesn't also eat babies?
grayhatter 2y ago
Copyright was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work. GPL was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work. The GPL and copyright are both about controlling what other people do with something you made. The MIT, or BSD license, or some other very permissive license that doesn't set down restrictions are arguably different from copyright. But the GPL isn't the opposite of copyright. It's just has different terms of use.
kube-system 2y ago
> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; No, public domain is the opposite of copyright. The GPL absolutely does give the author rights to dictate how people copy the software -- in fact -- even more so than many other open source licenses.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong. I'm mixed, because it's an entire spectrum and there's no clear sand in the ground. It's a very nuanced topic. But fundamentally, if people want to make sure they can benefit most from their creations, they need some way to protect themselves. Otherwise the biggest wallet will grab the idea, out-advertise you, and out support you. That's why I always vied for minimizing copyright periods, not abolishing the idea. Creators should benefit: creators have almost zero need to benefit almost a century after they die. the original 14 + 14 made enough sense and can still work: something that was basically an average lifetime back then and is now most of a working career. Those rights can transfer to whoever they want, and it would be transferred to a beneficiary posthumously. But when 28 is up, it's up.

coldpie 2y ago

> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail. > If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft No, this is absolutely incorrect. GPL requires copyright (or similar mechanism) to function. Without copyright, anyone could take the GPL'd code and release a compiled binary without releasing source. Releasing the source is the "payment" for being granted a license to copy the original code; without releasing the source, you are in violation of the author's copyright. No one who wants to use the GPL to protect their and their users' rights would advocate for eliminating copyright, because the GPL's goals cannot be achieved without copyright.

tikhonj 2y ago
The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. Code being copyrightable would just be getting in the way at that point. But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern copyright regime.
- coldpie 2y ago
  > The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. Hmm okay yeah, I buy that. Good rebuttal, I retract my comment :)
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  It's also possible such a law (in the US) would violate the first amendment (being "compelled speech").
  - f1refly 2y ago
    Laws are just made up by people, we can make up new ones if we want.
  - tikhonj 2y ago
    I mean, there's a reasonable argument that large swathes of current copyright law in the US also violate the First Amendment. I haven't read it yet, but the book No Law from Stanford University Press[1] makes that argument and has been on my to-read list for a while. [1]: https://www.sup.org/books/law/no-law https://www.sup.org/books/law/no-law
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Do food nutrition labels violate the first amendment, being compelled speech?
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    But nobody is compelling anyone to write and release software. It's no different to requiring food to include a list of ingredients or products to include safety standards references etc.
mathstuf 2y ago
One can still want much looser copyright. For example, 14 years by default, pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time (as compensation for stealing from the public domain). At least I'm willing to call extended copyright terms stealing if we're going to call format shifting and other personal use cases stealing.
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  > stealing from the public domain How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?
  - freedomben 2y ago
    > Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck? I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.
    - iamacyborg 2y ago
      No I agree it’s a poor argument when looked at either extreme. I think most folks would likely agree that some taxation is beneficial, albeit not a 100% tax rate, which would be broadly analogous to the argument that copyright shouldn’t exist.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        The person you replied to wasn't making the argument that copyright shouldn't exist. Their argument is in line with "some taxation" where it goes into the public domain after a while, and they only (potentially) called extended copyright terms stealing from the public domain.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck? don't you benefit from taxes?
belorn 2y ago
We can see with current legal situation around AI learning and data scraping how companies and their lawyers has starting to work around the issue of not having data protected by copyright. The general alternatives to copyright seems to be TOS and contract law, except for Hollywood which went and drafted their own special law. Downloading software from a server means you need to have access to that server, possible through an account. There is also a fair amount of precedence covering the enforceability of TOS and limitations of server access, especially when a company earn profit on intentionally ignoring them. Contract law has its own issue, and copyright is generally seen as much easier to understand and enforce, but if contract law can be used to control how software and data is used after a user has downloaded it then it could be used for something like GPL.

jjmarr 2y ago

Copyright itself is arguably theft sponsored by the state, because information can naturally be freely used/shared by all of humanity. Creating property rights in information reduces the collective knowledge of humanity (the commons), because now information can't be shared. The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such. I don't agree with this maximalist approach because many forms of knowledge wouldn't be created without a financial incentive. But there's many niches in the economy where free software creates greater economic benefit than a proprietary solution.

freedomben 2y ago
> The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such. This does not match my understanding. My understanding is that the goal of the GPL is to weaponize the copyright system to enforce copyleft. Many creators and supporters of the GPL do oppose IP laws (at least in their current form) but the goal specifically of the GPL isn't to destroy copyright, it's to weaponize it to accomplish higher purposes.

Brian_K_White 2y ago

The gpl sets terms, employing the right to set terms. The fact that those terms are not for money is the implimentation detail. The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not. Just like the normal terms for money, your choice is you can take it according to the terms, or leave it. Not just take it and ignore the terms. It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free.

exe34 2y ago
> It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free stealing from the commons, basically.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  No, absolutely not the commons. If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation. If you want to use their code, you have to join the company. Fortunately for you, all you have to do to join the company is to agree to use the same license for you own code as the company already does. If you agree to that, you are free to use any or all of the code "owned" by the company. However, if you do not agree to the company's terms - i.e. you wish to use a different license - then you are not a part of the company and have no legal right to use any of the company's code. You may of course continue with your own software, but you cannot benefit from the amassed resource that is the company's own code (though of course reading it is allowed).
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something. There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park. The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't fence off a part for yourself and start operating your tire-burning business in it. The body of people who either first donated it or the tax payers who voted for it set some terms for usage, and now you can either enjoy the goods under those terms or not. But what's interesting is how some people have this kind of reaction and try to come up with this kind of argument over the act of being generous. Are you sure GPL isn't even worse than you said? Why be so nice? Are you sure it doesn't also eat babies?

grayhatter 2y ago

Copyright was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work. GPL was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work. The GPL and copyright are both about controlling what other people do with something you made. The MIT, or BSD license, or some other very permissive license that doesn't set down restrictions are arguably different from copyright. But the GPL isn't the opposite of copyright. It's just has different terms of use.

kube-system 2y ago

> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; No, public domain is the opposite of copyright. The GPL absolutely does give the author rights to dictate how people copy the software -- in fact -- even more so than many other open source licenses.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong. I'm mixed, because it's an entire spectrum and there's no clear sand in the ground. It's a very nuanced topic. But fundamentally, if people want to make sure they can benefit most from their creations, they need some way to protect themselves. Otherwise the biggest wallet will grab the idea, out-advertise you, and out support you. That's why I always vied for minimizing copyright periods, not abolishing the idea. Creators should benefit: creators have almost zero need to benefit almost a century after they die. the original 14 + 14 made enough sense and can still work: something that was basically an average lifetime back then and is now most of a working career. Those rights can transfer to whoever they want, and it would be transferred to a beneficiary posthumously. But when 28 is up, it's up.