13 ms·

It seems like a bit of a strong restriction to have in the law that if I distribute an executable (which people may reverse engineer, modify, redistribute as th

by drdeca 2y ago

It seems like a bit of a strong restriction to have in the law that if I distribute an executable (which people may reverse engineer, modify, redistribute as they wish) that I am obligated to provide the source code upon request. Like, what if I want to release a rather difficult puzzle in the form of an obfuscated executable and provide a reward to the first person who solves it? If I’m required to release the source code upon request, then that kind of spoils the puzzle. (Sure, I can say that anyone who gets the source code this way is ineligible for the prize, but how could I tell?) This is of course a somewhat silly and niche edge case. Still though, it doesn’t seem natural/appropriate for a law would prevent such a thing. Whereas, agreeing to only distribute modifications I make to some software written by others if I’m willing to distribute the source code to my modifications, well, that would just be an agreement I would be making, and seems unobjectionable. Though, I wouldn’t really claim that all IP is illegitimate. I think many IP protections go way too far and last too long, but, I think some amount of copyright and patents is probably a good idea, though for a much shorter duration. So maybe I’m not really in the camp being described. I think the freedoms described in the GPL are good. I guess one alternative could be to say that all software written “for a useful purpose” (or something like that) has to have the source code made available, and that could handle the puzzle case I mentioned? It does seem important to avoid the case where one needs to use some software for something but is prevented from modifying it due to not having the source code. So… maybe if one is only required to provide the source code if someone could reasonably be described as “needing” the software for something? (E.g. if you “need it in order to get your printer working”, or the like.)

tikhonj 2y ago
The puzzle case is no different to how you can't sell somebody a rubiks cube without allowing them to "solve" it by taking it apart and putting it back together. You can make a physical item intentionally hard to work with or modify, but I see that as a shortcoming of our current legal standard—that's why we need some kind of "right to repair" framework. Requiring people to distribute human-readable code alongside software follows the same underlying philosophy as physical "right to repair" requirements.
- drdeca 2y ago
  I wasn’t thinking forbidding them from decompiling it or anything. I don’t think any rights are violated if government doesn’t issue any further copyright protections (even though I don’t think this for the best). I am not saying that the puzzle author should have any legal authority to restrict people from disassembling the puzzle. I’m just saying that the government shouldn’t compel the puzzle designer to distribute disassembled versions of the puzzle. If other people want to take apart their rubix cubes, they’re free to, I just shouldn’t be forced to help them take it apart.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    A reasonable tradeoff to explore is that software ought to work like a halfway-point between copyright and patents: in exchange for an exclusive right to distribute your binaries for 10-15 years, you provide your documentation for how it works (including source code) so others can build on your work after the exclusivity period ends. The exclusive right does not cover the basic idea/independent implementations of the same functionality. Potentially utilitarian software and creative software could be treated differently, e.g. have an escrow for games (for which user customizations are less important). Obviously DRM to restrict user modifications is unethical and harmful toward functioning markets and should be illegal.
traverseda 2y ago
>Though, I wouldn’t really claim that all IP is illegitimate. I think many IP protections go way too far and last too long, but, I think some amount of copyright and patents is probably a good idea, though for a much shorter duration. For what it's worth that's the camp I'm in as well, I'm just being a bit silly for the sake of argument.

by drdeca 2y ago

tikhonj 2y ago

The puzzle case is no different to how you can't sell somebody a rubiks cube without allowing them to "solve" it by taking it apart and putting it back together. You can make a physical item intentionally hard to work with or modify, but I see that as a shortcoming of our current legal standard—that's why we need some kind of "right to repair" framework. Requiring people to distribute human-readable code alongside software follows the same underlying philosophy as physical "right to repair" requirements.

drdeca 2y ago
I wasn’t thinking forbidding them from decompiling it or anything. I don’t think any rights are violated if government doesn’t issue any further copyright protections (even though I don’t think this for the best). I am not saying that the puzzle author should have any legal authority to restrict people from disassembling the puzzle. I’m just saying that the government shouldn’t compel the puzzle designer to distribute disassembled versions of the puzzle. If other people want to take apart their rubix cubes, they’re free to, I just shouldn’t be forced to help them take it apart.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  A reasonable tradeoff to explore is that software ought to work like a halfway-point between copyright and patents: in exchange for an exclusive right to distribute your binaries for 10-15 years, you provide your documentation for how it works (including source code) so others can build on your work after the exclusivity period ends. The exclusive right does not cover the basic idea/independent implementations of the same functionality. Potentially utilitarian software and creative software could be treated differently, e.g. have an escrow for games (for which user customizations are less important). Obviously DRM to restrict user modifications is unethical and harmful toward functioning markets and should be illegal.

traverseda 2y ago

>Though, I wouldn’t really claim that all IP is illegitimate. I think many IP protections go way too far and last too long, but, I think some amount of copyright and patents is probably a good idea, though for a much shorter duration. For what it's worth that's the camp I'm in as well, I'm just being a bit silly for the sake of argument.