3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's true that the GPL currently uses copyright law to achieve its goals; but it's not true that copyright is the only possible way of achieving them. If we're assuming legislative power (to abolish copyright), there's no reason we couldn't pass laws to achieve the same goals without copyright.
  - tzs 12y ago
    If the new law actually makes it illegal to provide software or use software in an embedded system without including source, and makes it illegal to use signing or other technical means to stop the user of a device that contains software from replacing that software, and makes any contract term that tries to place conditions on someone redistributing software they have received from others, then yes, we could achieve GPL goals without copyright. Otherwise, its still a copyright law. It's just more limited than current copyright law in that it might only cover software, and provide drastically fewer options for the author. The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility
    - icebraining 12y ago
      The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility Fair enough, but the discussion happens in the context of abolishing copyright, something that exists in (almost?) every single country in the world, and which is consecrated in many constitutions, include the US'.

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.

icebraining 12y ago
It's true that the GPL currently uses copyright law to achieve its goals; but it's not true that copyright is the only possible way of achieving them. If we're assuming legislative power (to abolish copyright), there's no reason we couldn't pass laws to achieve the same goals without copyright.
- tzs 12y ago
  If the new law actually makes it illegal to provide software or use software in an embedded system without including source, and makes it illegal to use signing or other technical means to stop the user of a device that contains software from replacing that software, and makes any contract term that tries to place conditions on someone redistributing software they have received from others, then yes, we could achieve GPL goals without copyright. Otherwise, its still a copyright law. It's just more limited than current copyright law in that it might only cover software, and provide drastically fewer options for the author. The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility
  - icebraining 12y ago
    The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility Fair enough, but the discussion happens in the context of abolishing copyright, something that exists in (almost?) every single country in the world, and which is consecrated in many constitutions, include the US'.