4 ms·

I believe that copyright law should be abolished. (Eventually, slowly, responsibly.) While I release some works as CC0 [1], I still use the GPLv3+ on much sou

by nfoz 12y ago

I believe that copyright law should be abolished. (Eventually, slowly, responsibly.) While I release some works as CC0 [1], I still use the GPLv3+ on much source code because it's the best way to protect freedom given the existing system. This isn't a dichotomy nor hypocritical. I would prefer for the GPL and other copyright licenses to be unenforcable; unfortunately that isn't the case. So I prefer not to BSD-license my works because then copyright could be used against me to take my rights from me. [1] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

thisisdave 12y ago
>I prefer not to BSD-license my works because then copyright could be used against me to take my rights from me. Can you elaborate on this point? I don't know what you're referring to.
- nfoz 12y ago
  BSD-ish licenses are "permissive", in that you can release modifications/derivatives of the work (in binary or source) that restrict how those modified versions are distributed. e.g. I write a BSD-licensed song, and someone remixes that song and says that I cannot copy the remixed version.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    How does that take away any of your rights, though? The BSD licensed song still exists.
    - nfoz 12y ago
      The original exists, but the modified versions that are now prevalent are works that do not grant me my rights. I have contributed to the arsenal of my adversaries; my works have become part of the works that deny me rights that I consider important, the right to share and remix. Whereas when copyright is abolished, if I have the song I can copy the song. They cannot put terms on it that would withhold my freedom to do so. I don't really need the GPL anymore; I don't demand anyone's source code, just my freedoms with the knowledge and information that is available to me.
    - belorn 12y ago
      Thats one of the most common argument against the concept of copyright. They say: How does a copy take away any of the authors rights? The original work is still there regardless how many copies are made by p2p file sharing. Which has been stated before in this comment thread. If we abolish copyright, GPL is not needed. If we keep copyright (and thus accept the concept of derivative copies effecting the author), then GPL request freedom. Please pick one. We should not cherry pick the arguments depending if one is talking about copyright or GPL. The same argument can't be false and true at the same time in the same mind.
habitue 12y ago
> I prefer not to BSD-license my works because then copyright could be used against me to take my rights from me I agree with you about GPL now vs. ideally no copyright, but one thing that would definitely be lost is the ability to coerce releasing source code. Companies in a hypothetical no-copyright future could still keep source code secret, and still release compiled/obfuscated software. They could still take code others had released, make modifications, and then only release obfuscated binaries. They wouldn't be able to sue if someone leaked the source code, but is that enough of a protection? Personally, I'm willing to live with it, because I think in the long run people would rather share. But from, say, RMS's point of view, people are losing some measurable level of protection.
- mlinksva 12y ago
  > ideally no copyright, but one thing that would definitely be lost is the ability to coerce releasing source code Would not "definitely" be lost. It's easy to imagine other regulation which coerces releasing source code (indeed more powerfully, as not relying on copyright holder to both choose the right license and enforce it), if indeed that is a socially valuable thing to do.
- nfoz 12y ago
  I really do value individual freedom. If I have access to some data, I want the freedom to share it. If I have some data, I want the freedom to not share it as well. "You must share the software" is not the world I want. Legal requirements to share, would actually make it a burden to provide anything: If I give my friend this disk, am I legally required to give them something else along with the disk? If my computer is accessible on a network, do I have a legal obligation to make any source code that is accessible also available? What are the rules about that? I think it's too messy. And honestly, if a kid writes a game, maybe they're embarassed about the source code... the law shouldn't require them to share that with their friends/teachers/etc. Although there might be merit to regulations on industry / corporate actions, especially in so far as their works affect the public (voting machines, safety equipment: software that we might want to require keeps its source-code alongside binary distributions). I'm much more comfortable with people keeping data to themselves in a world where they have less legal ability to prevent others from sharing it.

by nfoz 12y ago

thisisdave 12y ago

>I prefer not to BSD-license my works because then copyright could be used against me to take my rights from me. Can you elaborate on this point? I don't know what you're referring to.

nfoz 12y ago
BSD-ish licenses are "permissive", in that you can release modifications/derivatives of the work (in binary or source) that restrict how those modified versions are distributed. e.g. I write a BSD-licensed song, and someone remixes that song and says that I cannot copy the remixed version.
- teacup50 12y ago
  How does that take away any of your rights, though? The BSD licensed song still exists.
  - nfoz 12y ago
    The original exists, but the modified versions that are now prevalent are works that do not grant me my rights. I have contributed to the arsenal of my adversaries; my works have become part of the works that deny me rights that I consider important, the right to share and remix. Whereas when copyright is abolished, if I have the song I can copy the song. They cannot put terms on it that would withhold my freedom to do so. I don't really need the GPL anymore; I don't demand anyone's source code, just my freedoms with the knowledge and information that is available to me.
  - belorn 12y ago
    Thats one of the most common argument against the concept of copyright. They say: How does a copy take away any of the authors rights? The original work is still there regardless how many copies are made by p2p file sharing. Which has been stated before in this comment thread. If we abolish copyright, GPL is not needed. If we keep copyright (and thus accept the concept of derivative copies effecting the author), then GPL request freedom. Please pick one. We should not cherry pick the arguments depending if one is talking about copyright or GPL. The same argument can't be false and true at the same time in the same mind.

habitue 12y ago

> I prefer not to BSD-license my works because then copyright could be used against me to take my rights from me I agree with you about GPL now vs. ideally no copyright, but one thing that would definitely be lost is the ability to coerce releasing source code. Companies in a hypothetical no-copyright future could still keep source code secret, and still release compiled/obfuscated software. They could still take code others had released, make modifications, and then only release obfuscated binaries. They wouldn't be able to sue if someone leaked the source code, but is that enough of a protection? Personally, I'm willing to live with it, because I think in the long run people would rather share. But from, say, RMS's point of view, people are losing some measurable level of protection.

mlinksva 12y ago
> ideally no copyright, but one thing that would definitely be lost is the ability to coerce releasing source code Would not "definitely" be lost. It's easy to imagine other regulation which coerces releasing source code (indeed more powerfully, as not relying on copyright holder to both choose the right license and enforce it), if indeed that is a socially valuable thing to do.
nfoz 12y ago
I really do value individual freedom. If I have access to some data, I want the freedom to share it. If I have some data, I want the freedom to not share it as well. "You must share the software" is not the world I want. Legal requirements to share, would actually make it a burden to provide anything: If I give my friend this disk, am I legally required to give them something else along with the disk? If my computer is accessible on a network, do I have a legal obligation to make any source code that is accessible also available? What are the rules about that? I think it's too messy. And honestly, if a kid writes a game, maybe they're embarassed about the source code... the law shouldn't require them to share that with their friends/teachers/etc. Although there might be merit to regulations on industry / corporate actions, especially in so far as their works affect the public (voting machines, safety equipment: software that we might want to require keeps its source-code alongside binary distributions). I'm much more comfortable with people keeping data to themselves in a world where they have less legal ability to prevent others from sharing it.