4 ms·

Is this accurate? Perhaps I am one of the "bamboozled" mentioned in [1], as I tend to assume that the default copyright of works, in accordance with the Berne

by nfoz 12y ago

Is this accurate? Perhaps I am one of the "bamboozled" mentioned in [1], as I tend to assume that the default copyright of works, in accordance with the Berne convention[2], do not yield the right to make and distribute copies nor derivative works. [1] http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention I'd love to think that djb is correct, and that I do not need to distribute LICENSE files along with software in order for the users to have these freedoms that I expect them to have. I want copyright to be abolished. I do use CC0 [3] for many works. For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If we abolish copyright, then I would be all the happier that my works no longer require the GPL to protect these freedoms. [3] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

icebraining 12y ago
I tend to assume that the default copyright of works, in accordance with the Berne convention, do not yield the right to make and distribute copies nor derivative works. That's what the page says, and which is why he had to write that FAQ explicitly granting those rights (which defeats the whole point, in my humble opinion).
tzs 12y ago
> I want copyright to be abolished. I do use CC0 [3] for many works. For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If we abolish copyright, then I would be all the happier that my works no longer require the GPL to protect these freedoms If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist. Anyone could copy your software, modify it, build the modified binary, and distribute that modified binary without source, and locked down as tight as they want with DRM, and requiring updates be signed with a key only they have. You could try to counter this, of course, by carefully only giving copies of your code to people who enter into a contractual relationship with you in which they agree to not do any of those things you do not like, and to keep your code secret from others who have not entered into such an agreement with you...but it only takes on person leaking the code to the public and then it is game over.
- malgorithms 12y ago
  > If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist I think you and the poster above you likely have very different definitions of freedom. Supporting copyright is taking the stance that a reduction of freedom (to reproduce info) is worth it, in exchange for an economic incentive to invent. The world ends up with better stuff, and the inventors are rewarded. (That is the argument anyway.) Those who wish to abolish copyright usually either (1) think the economic argument is flawed or (2) believe that the freedom is simply more important than the economic gains. Or some blend/combo of those 2 arguments. So I'm curious what you mean that it actually leads to less freedom.
  - tzs 12y ago
    I'm not talking about economics at all. The poster above me is talking about "freedom" in the same sense the FSF does--the freedom of the users of a program to (1) run it as they wish, for any purpose, (2) to study how it works, and change it to work as they wish, (3) to redistribute it as they wish, and (4) to redistribute any modified versions they make. The reason they use GPL for their license, instead of something much simpler such as a BSD style license or MIT style license, is that they want to ensure that anyone who obtains their software will be able to do all of the things listed above. As the poster above me put it: For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If I were to take a copy of his software, modify it, build a binary from the modified copy, and use that in my proprietary product without making the modified source available to the users of my product, he would believe that I have limited the freedom of the users of my product. If I were to use a code signing scheme in the firmware of my product to block software updates that are not signed by me, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my users. If I make my users sign a legally binding agreement to not reverse engineer the code before I allow them to buy the product, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my users. He doesn't want me to be able to do any of that that, and so he uses GPLv3, which is only effective because of copyright. If copyright were eliminated, "Free Software" of the kind the FSF strives for is not possible.
mukyu 12y ago
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc. made things a lot murkier. It upheld EULAs (that is, you license software instead of owning it) and even ruled it was copyright infringement just to copy a program into memory once the EULA is violated. There is also Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. which says you kind-of own software when you buy it, ignoring licenses. Basically laws are complicated and you cannot even rely on how they read on face value.

by nfoz 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

I tend to assume that the default copyright of works, in accordance with the Berne convention, do not yield the right to make and distribute copies nor derivative works. That's what the page says, and which is why he had to write that FAQ explicitly granting those rights (which defeats the whole point, in my humble opinion).

tzs 12y ago

> I want copyright to be abolished. I do use CC0 [3] for many works. For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If we abolish copyright, then I would be all the happier that my works no longer require the GPL to protect these freedoms If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist. Anyone could copy your software, modify it, build the modified binary, and distribute that modified binary without source, and locked down as tight as they want with DRM, and requiring updates be signed with a key only they have. You could try to counter this, of course, by carefully only giving copies of your code to people who enter into a contractual relationship with you in which they agree to not do any of those things you do not like, and to keep your code secret from others who have not entered into such an agreement with you...but it only takes on person leaking the code to the public and then it is game over.

malgorithms 12y ago
> If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist I think you and the poster above you likely have very different definitions of freedom. Supporting copyright is taking the stance that a reduction of freedom (to reproduce info) is worth it, in exchange for an economic incentive to invent. The world ends up with better stuff, and the inventors are rewarded. (That is the argument anyway.) Those who wish to abolish copyright usually either (1) think the economic argument is flawed or (2) believe that the freedom is simply more important than the economic gains. Or some blend/combo of those 2 arguments. So I'm curious what you mean that it actually leads to less freedom.
- tzs 12y ago
  I'm not talking about economics at all. The poster above me is talking about "freedom" in the same sense the FSF does--the freedom of the users of a program to (1) run it as they wish, for any purpose, (2) to study how it works, and change it to work as they wish, (3) to redistribute it as they wish, and (4) to redistribute any modified versions they make. The reason they use GPL for their license, instead of something much simpler such as a BSD style license or MIT style license, is that they want to ensure that anyone who obtains their software will be able to do all of the things listed above. As the poster above me put it: For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If I were to take a copy of his software, modify it, build a binary from the modified copy, and use that in my proprietary product without making the modified source available to the users of my product, he would believe that I have limited the freedom of the users of my product. If I were to use a code signing scheme in the firmware of my product to block software updates that are not signed by me, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my users. If I make my users sign a legally binding agreement to not reverse engineer the code before I allow them to buy the product, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my users. He doesn't want me to be able to do any of that that, and so he uses GPLv3, which is only effective because of copyright. If copyright were eliminated, "Free Software" of the kind the FSF strives for is not possible.

mukyu 12y ago

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc. made things a lot murkier. It upheld EULAs (that is, you license software instead of owning it) and even ruled it was copyright infringement just to copy a program into memory once the EULA is violated. There is also Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. which says you kind-of own software when you buy it, ignoring licenses. Basically laws are complicated and you cannot even rely on how they read on face value.