4 ms·

I don't know about the specific intentions of the author, but I also refuse to put an explicit license on my code, because I firmly believe that code cannot be

by jnky 11y ago

I don't know about the specific intentions of the author, but I also refuse to put an explicit license on my code, because I firmly believe that code cannot be owned, sold or licensed anymore than the Pythagorean theorem can. In that sense, I consider the refusal to put a bunch of legalese nonsense on/near my code a form of protest against the current copyright laws. I'm here to write code and I don't want to put a license on my work just to appease some lawyers, as it lends credibility to a system that I reject on principle. Doing it this way only presents a problem for people and companies who subscribe to the view that copyright is indeed a real thing.

currysausage 11y ago
So, you accept potential legal hassle for you and the users of your software in order to "protest against the current copyright laws"? > I'm here to write code Exactly. So why not just add a brief MIT license [1] to your code, painlessly clarifying your legal stance? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#License_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#License_terms
- Drakim 11y ago
  While it could invite legal hassle for him and his users, if he thinks it's a fundamentally immoral thing then I can't fault him for not partaking and supporting the system by using a license, which does legitimize a system what he doesn't support.
- jnky 11y ago
  > So, you accept potential legal hassle for you and the users of your software in order to "protest against the current copyright laws"? Yes. > Exactly. So why not just add a brief MIT license [1] to your code, painlessly clarifying your legal stance? Because that does not clarify my legal stance at all. My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code. I feel like adding a license (even a permissive one) undermines this very idea. The only people who insist on a license are exactly the people that this form of protest is meant to oppose.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    >> My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code. Is this an aspirational stance? Because at the moment that's not what the law says (in any country I know of) and simple licenses like the MIT are probably the easiest way to legally say that you're allowing any use the recipient likes.
    - adrusi 11y ago
      Actually something with strong copyleft semantics might actually be more appropriate than MIT in this case (if we're already willing to legitimize the copyright system by having a license, which is necessary). If the argument is that everyone should be free to use whatever code however they want, then MIT lets delivers on the "however", but not the "whatever". GPL slightly limits the "however", but delivers on some of the "whatever" due to its viral nature.
    - jnky 11y ago
      > Is this an aspirational stance? Obviously. > Because at the moment that's not what the law says (in any country I know of) [...] True. But that's also why I'm unwilling to play along and express my views on the matter within a framework that I perceive to be immoral and wrong.
swah 11y ago
Hmm, I don't understand, why can't code be owned?
- jnky 11y ago
  I don't see why it should be possible to own code. I think the ownership of physical items is an intuitive concept that comes naturally from the scarcity of such items. Code, algorithms or ideas on the other hand are not scarce and I think that the legal framework that makes it possible to own such immaterial things is immoral.
  - swah 11y ago
    Ok, but my implementation as bytes on disk I can own, right?
yarrel 11y ago
The freeman on the land / sovereign citizen approach to copyright doesn't work. Adding a free license isn't something you do to appease lawyers, it makes the principles you profess to hold into a reality rather than a trap.
- jnky 11y ago
  I understand that there are practical problems with this approach, but I disagree with your conclusion: Adding a free license would express my principles within a framework that I fundamentally disagree with. Your comparison with the freeman on the land / sovereign citizen line of thinking made me reflect on my own views on the subject, as these people are obviously nutjobs. However, I view my approach as a valid act of civil disobedience with no ill effects for anyone involved.

by jnky 11y ago

currysausage 11y ago

So, you accept potential legal hassle for you and the users of your software in order to "protest against the current copyright laws"? > I'm here to write code Exactly. So why not just add a brief MIT license [1] to your code, painlessly clarifying your legal stance? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#License_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#License_terms

Drakim 11y ago
While it could invite legal hassle for him and his users, if he thinks it's a fundamentally immoral thing then I can't fault him for not partaking and supporting the system by using a license, which does legitimize a system what he doesn't support.
jnky 11y ago
> So, you accept potential legal hassle for you and the users of your software in order to "protest against the current copyright laws"? Yes. > Exactly. So why not just add a brief MIT license [1] to your code, painlessly clarifying your legal stance? Because that does not clarify my legal stance at all. My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code. I feel like adding a license (even a permissive one) undermines this very idea. The only people who insist on a license are exactly the people that this form of protest is meant to oppose.
- Nursie 11y ago
  >> My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code. Is this an aspirational stance? Because at the moment that's not what the law says (in any country I know of) and simple licenses like the MIT are probably the easiest way to legally say that you're allowing any use the recipient likes.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    Actually something with strong copyleft semantics might actually be more appropriate than MIT in this case (if we're already willing to legitimize the copyright system by having a license, which is necessary). If the argument is that everyone should be free to use whatever code however they want, then MIT lets delivers on the "however", but not the "whatever". GPL slightly limits the "however", but delivers on some of the "whatever" due to its viral nature.
  - jnky 11y ago
    > Is this an aspirational stance? Obviously. > Because at the moment that's not what the law says (in any country I know of) [...] True. But that's also why I'm unwilling to play along and express my views on the matter within a framework that I perceive to be immoral and wrong.

swah 11y ago

Hmm, I don't understand, why can't code be owned?

jnky 11y ago
I don't see why it should be possible to own code. I think the ownership of physical items is an intuitive concept that comes naturally from the scarcity of such items. Code, algorithms or ideas on the other hand are not scarce and I think that the legal framework that makes it possible to own such immaterial things is immoral.
- swah 11y ago
  Ok, but my implementation as bytes on disk I can own, right?

yarrel 11y ago

The freeman on the land / sovereign citizen approach to copyright doesn't work. Adding a free license isn't something you do to appease lawyers, it makes the principles you profess to hold into a reality rather than a trap.

jnky 11y ago
I understand that there are practical problems with this approach, but I disagree with your conclusion: Adding a free license would express my principles within a framework that I fundamentally disagree with. Your comparison with the freeman on the land / sovereign citizen line of thinking made me reflect on my own views on the subject, as these people are obviously nutjobs. However, I view my approach as a valid act of civil disobedience with no ill effects for anyone involved.