4 ms·
The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. C
by 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 agoIt's also possible such a law (in the US) would violate the first amendment (being "compelled speech").
- f1refly 2y agoLaws are just made up by people, we can make up new ones if we want.
- tikhonj 2y agoI 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 agoDo food nutrition labels violate the first amendment, being compelled speech?
- globular-toast 2y agoBut 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.