3 ms·

I see, so you admit that your argument that authors required copyright to make money was nonsense? Now it's just something they should have according to you? An

by phaemon 13y ago

I see, so you admit that your argument that authors required copyright to make money was nonsense? Now it's just something they should have according to you? And since your first argument failed, you're now trying to attack me. Typical. I'm a bad example. The company I'm currently working with uses all OSS code and it is already released. I don't have the authors permission to make it public domain, I'm afraid. I'm restricted by copyright... All my personal work is indeed released without copyright restrictions, though I'd be tempted to use a non-commercial clause just because it's an un-even playing field: I don't get to ignore other people's copyright just because I don't use it on my work. In short, your argument is basically "if you don't like slavery, just release all your slaves". I'm restricted by copyright. So are you. Why should I accept that condition just so some lazy sod can make money more easily?

x0054 13y ago
1. No, I still think that copyright law is absolutely necessary in order for some types of authors to be able to make money and sustain them selves through the sale of their works. Specifically film makers and book authors, because that's what I am familiar with most. 2. I am not attacking you personally. I am challenging you to practice what you preach. You may use exclusively OSS code in your business, but the glue code that runs the OSS bits, the business model, your list of suppliers, etc. All of that is IP, release that. I don't actually expect you to do that, you know perfectly well that I think that would be unfair. I am simply trying to make you see how exposed people like book authors are. Their entire business is on display, for everyone to see. Their book is the entirety of their work, and unlike you, without copyright, they would have no protection what so ever. Even without copyright, you would always have a choice whether to make your work public, they would not. 3. Stop comparing Copyright Law to Slavery. It's insulting to the memory of the people who actually were slaves to compare ownership right in specific expression with ownership rights in other human beings.
- phaemon 13y ago
  EDIT: Never mind. I don't see any point in this conversation. Have a good weekend.

by phaemon 13y ago

x0054 13y ago

1. No, I still think that copyright law is absolutely necessary in order for some types of authors to be able to make money and sustain them selves through the sale of their works. Specifically film makers and book authors, because that's what I am familiar with most. 2. I am not attacking you personally. I am challenging you to practice what you preach. You may use exclusively OSS code in your business, but the glue code that runs the OSS bits, the business model, your list of suppliers, etc. All of that is IP, release that. I don't actually expect you to do that, you know perfectly well that I think that would be unfair. I am simply trying to make you see how exposed people like book authors are. Their entire business is on display, for everyone to see. Their book is the entirety of their work, and unlike you, without copyright, they would have no protection what so ever. Even without copyright, you would always have a choice whether to make your work public, they would not. 3. Stop comparing Copyright Law to Slavery. It's insulting to the memory of the people who actually were slaves to compare ownership right in specific expression with ownership rights in other human beings.

phaemon 13y ago
EDIT: Never mind. I don't see any point in this conversation. Have a good weekend.