4 ms·

> If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. Citation needed. You can freely copy and distribute linux and it still got mad

by tpxl 1y ago

> If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. Citation needed. You can freely copy and distribute linux and it still got made.

eru 1y ago
Linux is under the GPL, which explicitly needs copyright to work. Something like the BSD licenses approximates 'no copyright' better, perhaps? But also not completely.
AStonesThrow 1y ago
The GP wasn't referring to DRM or DMCA type "copyright protection" as the phrase is typically used. Nobody in this thread has mentioned any of that. The GP is referring to legal protections, and guess what? Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Nearly every GPL license--every one that we could name--protects a copyrighted work! Nearly every GFDL, AGPL, LGPL protects works by means of copyright law! Can you imagine that? So do the Apache license, the BSD licenses, the MIT license! Creative Commons (except for CC0) these licenses are legally protecting copyrighted works. Thank you! Now everyone who proposes to draw down limits on copyright coverage and reduce the length of terms and limit Disney from their Mouse rights, y'all are also proposing the same limits on GPL software, such as Linux, and nearly every work with a license from the above list -- all of Wikimedia Commons, much of Flickr.com, all your beloved F/OSS software will be subject to the same limitations and the same restrictions you want to put on Paramount and the RIAA's labels.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  Yeah, I think most of us are fine with 50 years old Linux kernel being released into public domain.
pastage 1y ago
Linux has used the GPL to its advantage. That can not exist without copyright. (The two camps in copyright discussions, improving it e.g. CC, or destroy it)
lmm 1y ago
Linux is generally a functional tool, and struggles with overall coherence. There are far fewer success stories of artworks being made in this style. (E.g. there are successful multiplayer open-source games or clones of existing games, but very few original single-player games, and those that there are are largely the work of a single individual)
- eru 1y ago
  Linux is both a kernel (which is under GPL), and an operating system, whose other components are under a variety of licenses (and you can pick and match which components you want). That's why some people like to call it 'Gnu/Linux', but thanks to recent advances we can make Gnu-free Linuxes today, too. > There are far fewer success stories of artworks being made in this style. (E.g. there are successful multiplayer open-source games or clones of existing games, but very few original single-player games, and those that there are are largely the work of a single individual) Humans have made art since forever. Large collaborative efforts like eg a cathedral are a more recent invention. But by these standards copyright was practically invented yesterday.
  - lmm 1y ago
    > Linux is both a kernel (which is under GPL), and an operating system I was talking about the kernel, though what I said applies to both. > Humans have made art since forever. Perhaps, but not the kind of long-form narrative experiences that we're talking about here. (Sagas and epics predate copyright, but those are a quite different form, and indeed have much the same downsides - struggles with coherence and consistency when there are multiple authors, inability to put everything together in a sensible arc).
mattkevan 1y ago
Most of the classic Disney films are based on public domain stories. If there were copyright, those works wouldn’t have been created.
- dehrmann 1y ago
  I hadn't put this together, but "The Great Mouse Detective" is a riff on Sherlock Holmes, but that didn't enter the public domain until much later. Would it have been better if it used the character and not just the general vibe?
simiones 1y ago
I think Linus Torvalds has been very explicit that he believes the GPL has been critical to the success of Linux - specifically, the copyright-enforced obligation to contribute back any modifications you make. In a world without copyright, companies would be free to make their own modifications and keep them secret, making it more or less impossible to integrate them into a cohesive whole the way they are more or less forced to do today.
- eru 1y ago
  GPL only forces you to contribute back a modification you make and publish. > In a world without copyright, companies would be free to make their own modifications and keep them secret, making it more or less impossible to integrate them into a cohesive whole the way they are more or less forced to do today. Private modifications that are never shared with a third party are fine with the GPL. Eg Google doesn't have to share whatever kernel they are using on their internal servers with you.
- dehrmann 1y ago
  The things that hold modifications back from being upstreamed are getting consensus with the OSS developers and sometimes the internal legal team. Occasionally, the issue is proprietary information. Usually, it's the time commitment or upstream not being interested. What companies don't like doing is maintaining patches on a fork, and that's enough incentive to give back on its own.
GuB-42 1y ago
If you want a point, BSD is probably a better example. Linux is protected by copyright, that's what makes copyleft licenses like GPL possible. BSD is also protected by copyright, but it matters less for permissive licenses. It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, unlike with Linux that is for a big part defined by the "copyleft" protections offered by its licence.
- eru 1y ago
  > It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, [...] Well, you could imagine a world that protects the 'moral' rights of authors like attribution, but doesn't otherwise prohibit anyone from duplicating or modifying works.
  - GuB-42 1y ago
    I don't know about the US but in French "droits d'auteur", moral rights are treated differently from exploitation rights. In particular, they cannot be waived, they cannot be sold, and there is no "work-for-hire". For example, even as an employee, every line of code you write will be yours until you die and nothing can change that. You may not be allowed to do anything with it (for example because the exploitation rights go to your employer), but it is still yours.
    - eru 1y ago
      Yes, that's what I had in mind. So something like the French system minus copyright would approximate the BSD license. (I was thinking of Germany, which works similarly, if memory serves right. You also cannot release anything you write into the public domain by German law, though you can do legal moves that are essentially equivalent.)

by tpxl 1y ago

> If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. Citation needed. You can freely copy and distribute linux and it still got made.

eru 1y ago

Linux is under the GPL, which explicitly needs copyright to work. Something like the BSD licenses approximates 'no copyright' better, perhaps? But also not completely.

AStonesThrow 1y ago

The GP wasn't referring to DRM or DMCA type "copyright protection" as the phrase is typically used. Nobody in this thread has mentioned any of that. The GP is referring to legal protections, and guess what? Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Nearly every GPL license--every one that we could name--protects a copyrighted work! Nearly every GFDL, AGPL, LGPL protects works by means of copyright law! Can you imagine that? So do the Apache license, the BSD licenses, the MIT license! Creative Commons (except for CC0) these licenses are legally protecting copyrighted works. Thank you! Now everyone who proposes to draw down limits on copyright coverage and reduce the length of terms and limit Disney from their Mouse rights, y'all are also proposing the same limits on GPL software, such as Linux, and nearly every work with a license from the above list -- all of Wikimedia Commons, much of Flickr.com, all your beloved F/OSS software will be subject to the same limitations and the same restrictions you want to put on Paramount and the RIAA's labels.

bornfreddy 1y ago
Yeah, I think most of us are fine with 50 years old Linux kernel being released into public domain.

pastage 1y ago

Linux has used the GPL to its advantage. That can not exist without copyright. (The two camps in copyright discussions, improving it e.g. CC, or destroy it)

lmm 1y ago

Linux is generally a functional tool, and struggles with overall coherence. There are far fewer success stories of artworks being made in this style. (E.g. there are successful multiplayer open-source games or clones of existing games, but very few original single-player games, and those that there are are largely the work of a single individual)

eru 1y ago
Linux is both a kernel (which is under GPL), and an operating system, whose other components are under a variety of licenses (and you can pick and match which components you want). That's why some people like to call it 'Gnu/Linux', but thanks to recent advances we can make Gnu-free Linuxes today, too. > There are far fewer success stories of artworks being made in this style. (E.g. there are successful multiplayer open-source games or clones of existing games, but very few original single-player games, and those that there are are largely the work of a single individual) Humans have made art since forever. Large collaborative efforts like eg a cathedral are a more recent invention. But by these standards copyright was practically invented yesterday.
- lmm 1y ago
  > Linux is both a kernel (which is under GPL), and an operating system I was talking about the kernel, though what I said applies to both. > Humans have made art since forever. Perhaps, but not the kind of long-form narrative experiences that we're talking about here. (Sagas and epics predate copyright, but those are a quite different form, and indeed have much the same downsides - struggles with coherence and consistency when there are multiple authors, inability to put everything together in a sensible arc).

mattkevan 1y ago

Most of the classic Disney films are based on public domain stories. If there were copyright, those works wouldn’t have been created.

dehrmann 1y ago
I hadn't put this together, but "The Great Mouse Detective" is a riff on Sherlock Holmes, but that didn't enter the public domain until much later. Would it have been better if it used the character and not just the general vibe?

simiones 1y ago

I think Linus Torvalds has been very explicit that he believes the GPL has been critical to the success of Linux - specifically, the copyright-enforced obligation to contribute back any modifications you make. In a world without copyright, companies would be free to make their own modifications and keep them secret, making it more or less impossible to integrate them into a cohesive whole the way they are more or less forced to do today.

eru 1y ago
GPL only forces you to contribute back a modification you make and publish. > In a world without copyright, companies would be free to make their own modifications and keep them secret, making it more or less impossible to integrate them into a cohesive whole the way they are more or less forced to do today. Private modifications that are never shared with a third party are fine with the GPL. Eg Google doesn't have to share whatever kernel they are using on their internal servers with you.
dehrmann 1y ago
The things that hold modifications back from being upstreamed are getting consensus with the OSS developers and sometimes the internal legal team. Occasionally, the issue is proprietary information. Usually, it's the time commitment or upstream not being interested. What companies don't like doing is maintaining patches on a fork, and that's enough incentive to give back on its own.

GuB-42 1y ago

If you want a point, BSD is probably a better example. Linux is protected by copyright, that's what makes copyleft licenses like GPL possible. BSD is also protected by copyright, but it matters less for permissive licenses. It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, unlike with Linux that is for a big part defined by the "copyleft" protections offered by its licence.

eru 1y ago
> It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, [...] Well, you could imagine a world that protects the 'moral' rights of authors like attribution, but doesn't otherwise prohibit anyone from duplicating or modifying works.
- GuB-42 1y ago
  I don't know about the US but in French "droits d'auteur", moral rights are treated differently from exploitation rights. In particular, they cannot be waived, they cannot be sold, and there is no "work-for-hire". For example, even as an employee, every line of code you write will be yours until you die and nothing can change that. You may not be allowed to do anything with it (for example because the exploitation rights go to your employer), but it is still yours.
  - eru 1y ago
    Yes, that's what I had in mind. So something like the French system minus copyright would approximate the BSD license. (I was thinking of Germany, which works similarly, if memory serves right. You also cannot release anything you write into the public domain by German law, though you can do legal moves that are essentially equivalent.)