36 ms·

> Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies. These libertarians would still s

by mpyne 13y ago

> Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies. These libertarians would still see GPL as a non-libertarian license then. GPL, like other "copyleft" licenses, depends upon strong copyright law to work at all. GPL without copyright is just public domain, and not GPL at all. BSD/MIT-style licenses, on the other hand, barely use copyright at all. Most of the verbiage is to disclaim warranty and ensure the license itself remains with the source, the only thing mentioned about copyright itself is a simple grant that modifications may be made.

_delirium 13y ago
Yes, but the main thing the GPL does with copyright is to attempt to defang the exercise of the copyright monopoly itself, by preventing you from yourself using copyright law to remove downstream users' reuse/modification/distribution rights. It's not an ideal solution, but it's a pragmatic attempt to turn copyright law against itself. The BSD/MIT licenses, by contrast, do nothing to hamper those who would exercise such a a monopoly (i.e. the authors of proprietary software), and in fact seem often explicitly chosen in order to enable them.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Right. I'm sorry, I had missed that paragraph in one of your earlier comments as GPL being a way to make copyright not suck. I would still argue that GPL's intended effect (that source remain open and available for inspection) is achievable only with copyright, while never achievable with BSD/MIT (which can always be taken proprietary again, even without copyright law). So in that guise GPL (w/ copyright) is more concerned with society overall (i.e. having access to source), even to the exclusion of some individual freedoms. Additionally these restrictions cannot be enforced without some version of an IP regime which makes it even more non-libertarian.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Oh, good point. I tend to forget that aspect of the GPL. My comments had in mind only the "viral copyleft" aspect. That is, a license that grants you permission to modify & distribute modified copies, and also specifies that you have to retain that same permission in all derivative works, but doesn't require anything else. You're right that the GPL has the additional affirmative requirement to actually release source code, which is using copyright law to compel a specific action. And yeah, that does seem to come from a certain collective-good concern: GNU want people to not only legally be able to modify software, but to be able to do so in practice too, so have written some things to try to make sure that's the case (the LGPL "users must be able to swap out the library" requirement is another example). I wonder if there are any licenses that have the "viral" licensing terms but impose no other requirements. CC-BY-SA comes to mind, but isn't widely applied to software.
  - belorn 13y ago
    It is an individual freedom to be able to use, modify and share new version of a program. The right to do so and be left alone is not an anti-libertarian view. If the program comes obfuscated through a binary only release, such act would simply be a technical means to create a restriction. The restriction still infringe on peoples right to be left alone. This is nothing new. Debt bondage tried to create a technical mean to recreate slavery, and it also infringed on peoples right to be left alone (freedom from slavery). A key aspect of GPL is that you automatically find yourself at compliance with the license if you leave people alone who want to use, modify and share the program. Problems only arrive when one start to select which parts of the program to withhold, or when one start to use legal or hardware restrictions to interfere with peoples rights. Compliance is thus easy, and the only hard part is to avoid the urge to exploit people rights for profit.

by mpyne 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago

Yes, but the main thing the GPL does with copyright is to attempt to defang the exercise of the copyright monopoly itself, by preventing you from yourself using copyright law to remove downstream users' reuse/modification/distribution rights. It's not an ideal solution, but it's a pragmatic attempt to turn copyright law against itself. The BSD/MIT licenses, by contrast, do nothing to hamper those who would exercise such a a monopoly (i.e. the authors of proprietary software), and in fact seem often explicitly chosen in order to enable them.

mpyne 13y ago
Right. I'm sorry, I had missed that paragraph in one of your earlier comments as GPL being a way to make copyright not suck. I would still argue that GPL's intended effect (that source remain open and available for inspection) is achievable only with copyright, while never achievable with BSD/MIT (which can always be taken proprietary again, even without copyright law). So in that guise GPL (w/ copyright) is more concerned with society overall (i.e. having access to source), even to the exclusion of some individual freedoms. Additionally these restrictions cannot be enforced without some version of an IP regime which makes it even more non-libertarian.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Oh, good point. I tend to forget that aspect of the GPL. My comments had in mind only the "viral copyleft" aspect. That is, a license that grants you permission to modify & distribute modified copies, and also specifies that you have to retain that same permission in all derivative works, but doesn't require anything else. You're right that the GPL has the additional affirmative requirement to actually release source code, which is using copyright law to compel a specific action. And yeah, that does seem to come from a certain collective-good concern: GNU want people to not only legally be able to modify software, but to be able to do so in practice too, so have written some things to try to make sure that's the case (the LGPL "users must be able to swap out the library" requirement is another example). I wonder if there are any licenses that have the "viral" licensing terms but impose no other requirements. CC-BY-SA comes to mind, but isn't widely applied to software.
- belorn 13y ago
  It is an individual freedom to be able to use, modify and share new version of a program. The right to do so and be left alone is not an anti-libertarian view. If the program comes obfuscated through a binary only release, such act would simply be a technical means to create a restriction. The restriction still infringe on peoples right to be left alone. This is nothing new. Debt bondage tried to create a technical mean to recreate slavery, and it also infringed on peoples right to be left alone (freedom from slavery). A key aspect of GPL is that you automatically find yourself at compliance with the license if you leave people alone who want to use, modify and share the program. Problems only arrive when one start to select which parts of the program to withhold, or when one start to use legal or hardware restrictions to interfere with peoples rights. Compliance is thus easy, and the only hard part is to avoid the urge to exploit people rights for profit.