3 ms·

You are likely too much in it to see the other side. Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it

You are likely too much in it to see the other side. Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it aims for, but then structured into the copyright world of licensing to use and distribute. It is nothing but a workaround, and copyleft uses it to make the default an even stronger case for reuse (by including sources). In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).

otterley 5d ago
> Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him. > In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster). I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon. Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.
- necovek 5d ago
  I apologize for intruding on your personal conversation on a public forum. What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.
MattPalmer1086 5d ago
No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution. OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".
- necovek 5d ago
  I am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
  - MattPalmer1086 5d ago
    It is interesting that a philosophy opposed to ownership and restriction of control has pretty much the most controlling terms of any OSS license - to the extent it is usually banned in any commercial software development. I do understand the copy left rationale - to ensure the freedom to modify and for the community to benefit from those modifications, it is necessary to use the machinery of control!

otterley 5d ago

> Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him. > In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster). I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon. Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.

necovek 5d ago
I apologize for intruding on your personal conversation on a public forum. What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.

MattPalmer1086 5d ago

No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution. OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".

necovek 5d ago
I am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
- MattPalmer1086 5d ago
  It is interesting that a philosophy opposed to ownership and restriction of control has pretty much the most controlling terms of any OSS license - to the extent it is usually banned in any commercial software development. I do understand the copy left rationale - to ensure the freedom to modify and for the community to benefit from those modifications, it is necessary to use the machinery of control!