4 ms·
Wouldn't surprise me, seems to be the case for many of the users here as well.
by freejazz 15d ago
Wouldn't surprise me, seems to be the case for many of the users here as well.
- dgellow 14d agoYeah, the vast majority of people in FLOSS don’t understand that copyright is what enables FLOSS to exist in the first place
- hn_acker 14d agoCopyright currently is what allows FLOSS to exist. In a vanishingly unlikely hypothetical future copyright-free USA (the legal transition to which, I believe, would almost certainly violate the First Amendment by chilling speech), new laws could be passed to provide copyright-like protection only for FLOSS-licensed works.
- freejazz 14d agoSo it'd just be copyright again? Fascinating.
- hn_acker 14d agoWhen you said > EFF is generally not very pro-copyright I thought you and the other replies downthread of your comment were referring to the current implementation of copyright, rather than the concept of copyright. From what I've read, EFF generally supports the concept of copyright. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. In my reply to dgellow's comment, which included > copyright is what enables FLOSS to exist in the first place , I was simply arguing that the current implementation of copyright theoretically could be reduced overall in a way that would not weaken the legal power of FLOSS licenses.
- freejazz 12d agoIt's not me with the monolithic view, that's for sure.
- hn_acker 12d agoNot sure what was monolithic about my view. Are you sure you haven't mistaken my hypothetical example for a normative suggestion? I was expecting a lawyer to be less prone than myself to such a mistake (but I suppose almost every court case involves a lawyer who has made a mistake of some sort haha). I still think you have misinterpreted EFF's stance on copyright, whether you meant copyright as a concept or copyright as implemented.