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

> 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.

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.