4 ms·

No as a concept. Assigning ownership to specific bit patterns is absurd.

by bjourne 6mo ago

kube-system 6mo ago
So, anyone should be able to sell something called "Coca Cola"?
- senko 6mo ago
  Nitpick: that’s trademark, not copyright. While it’s bundled under IP, it’s a different beast altogether.
  - kube-system 6mo ago
    The above claim was in fact regarding “intellectual property”. If you break it down, there are plenty of IP rights which make a lot of sense. Here’s one for copyright: “Do you think any corporation should be allowed to make closed source forks of GPL software?”
    - senko 6mo ago
      If there’s no copyright, there’s no closed source. You get their code, decompile/disassemble and reuse as you see fit. You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GPL is only concerned if you further distribute the modifications. Next one?
      - lamonade 6mo ago
        Here’s the convenient truth: GPL doesnt allow distributing the binary without distributing the code. Next one?
        senko 6mo ago
        Awesome. If you think that is stopping anyone, here's a challenge for you: GNU Bash is GPL. You can run Bash (and many other Linux commands) in Windows through Windows Subsystem for Linux. In fact, WSL is a nice example of Microsoft doing embrace & extend. The challenge: find the Microsoft's published code for Bash.
        kube-system 6mo ago
        WSL does not include bash. When you use bash from within WSL, it is using the version of bash that was included in the upstream distribution of linux you have installed. If you are using a Debian based image, to get the source code run the following: apt-get source bash You can also reference the website of the distribution you have chosen to install, e.g. https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash
        senko 6mo ago
        My point exactly (notice I didn't say MS distributes bash - it doesn't, as you pointed out). Bash being GPL doesn't stop MS from benefiting from it by providing it to WSL users which make WSL more valuable for them. It also (as we talked in the other comment) doesn't prevent Amazon from running a database and charging people for it. So what's this great advantage of GPL that it would make it worthwhile to keep the entire copyright system just so we could still have GPL? If you dig around in its origin, GPL was concieved as a tool to "fight system from within system". If there's no system, you don't have to fight the system.
        kube-system 6mo ago
        > notice I didn't say MS distributes bash Then why did you ask for something if you knew it didn't exist??? Overall I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the GPL. It does not, nor has it ever intended to prohibit commercial activities. RMS and FSF have been pretty clear about this for many decades. And in fact, they are against the idea of licenses that prohibit commercial use. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html The point of GPL is to enforce a specific worldview of developer freedoms through the application of copyleft.
      - kube-system 6mo ago
        A lack of copyright does not mean secrets cannot exist. In fact, it would heavily incentivize it. > Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. Only privately or over a network, but it prohibits distribution of binaries without source. This is the primary reason the GPL exists.
        senko 6mo ago
        And how does that exactly stop Amazon, Google or Microsoft (heh) from running GPLd software in their data centers and raking in money for hosting products built by poor open source devs? I'm not worried about Microsoft recompiling bash and redistributing it. Is that a realistic problem for you?
        kube-system 6mo ago
        It doesn't, neither the GPL nor any mainstream license prohibit commercial hosting... not even AGPL. Nobody said it did.
- bjourne 6mo ago
  What a dumb question. Got any more?
layer8 6mo ago
Intellectual property isn’t about bit patterns.

No as a concept. Assigning ownership to specific bit patterns is absurd.

by bjourne 6mo ago

No as a concept. Assigning ownership to specific bit patterns is absurd.

kube-system 6mo ago

So, anyone should be able to sell something called "Coca Cola"?

senko 6mo ago
Nitpick: that’s trademark, not copyright. While it’s bundled under IP, it’s a different beast altogether.
- kube-system 6mo ago
  The above claim was in fact regarding “intellectual property”. If you break it down, there are plenty of IP rights which make a lot of sense. Here’s one for copyright: “Do you think any corporation should be allowed to make closed source forks of GPL software?”
  - senko 6mo ago
    If there’s no copyright, there’s no closed source. You get their code, decompile/disassemble and reuse as you see fit. You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GPL is only concerned if you further distribute the modifications. Next one?
    - lamonade 6mo ago
      Here’s the convenient truth: GPL doesnt allow distributing the binary without distributing the code. Next one?
      - senko 6mo ago
        Awesome. If you think that is stopping anyone, here's a challenge for you: GNU Bash is GPL. You can run Bash (and many other Linux commands) in Windows through Windows Subsystem for Linux. In fact, WSL is a nice example of Microsoft doing embrace & extend. The challenge: find the Microsoft's published code for Bash.
        kube-system 6mo ago
        WSL does not include bash. When you use bash from within WSL, it is using the version of bash that was included in the upstream distribution of linux you have installed. If you are using a Debian based image, to get the source code run the following: apt-get source bash You can also reference the website of the distribution you have chosen to install, e.g. https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash
        senko 6mo ago
        My point exactly (notice I didn't say MS distributes bash - it doesn't, as you pointed out). Bash being GPL doesn't stop MS from benefiting from it by providing it to WSL users which make WSL more valuable for them. It also (as we talked in the other comment) doesn't prevent Amazon from running a database and charging people for it. So what's this great advantage of GPL that it would make it worthwhile to keep the entire copyright system just so we could still have GPL? If you dig around in its origin, GPL was concieved as a tool to "fight system from within system". If there's no system, you don't have to fight the system.
        kube-system 6mo ago
        > notice I didn't say MS distributes bash Then why did you ask for something if you knew it didn't exist??? Overall I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the GPL. It does not, nor has it ever intended to prohibit commercial activities. RMS and FSF have been pretty clear about this for many decades. And in fact, they are against the idea of licenses that prohibit commercial use. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html The point of GPL is to enforce a specific worldview of developer freedoms through the application of copyleft.
    - kube-system 6mo ago
      A lack of copyright does not mean secrets cannot exist. In fact, it would heavily incentivize it. > Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. Only privately or over a network, but it prohibits distribution of binaries without source. This is the primary reason the GPL exists.
      - senko 6mo ago
        And how does that exactly stop Amazon, Google or Microsoft (heh) from running GPLd software in their data centers and raking in money for hosting products built by poor open source devs? I'm not worried about Microsoft recompiling bash and redistributing it. Is that a realistic problem for you?
        kube-system 6mo ago
        It doesn't, neither the GPL nor any mainstream license prohibit commercial hosting... not even AGPL. Nobody said it did.
bjourne 6mo ago
What a dumb question. Got any more?

layer8 6mo ago

Intellectual property isn’t about bit patterns.