SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:27PM
from the waiting-for-the-multiverse-donor dept.
from the waiting-for-the-multiverse-donor dept.
Over at the Meshed Insights blog, Simon Phipps writes about why the public domain falls short and more detailed licensing is needed in order to extend rights to a software community.
Yes, public domain may give you the rights you need. But in an open source project, it's not enough for you to determine you personally have the rights you need. In order to function, every user and contributor of the project needs prior confidence they can use, improve and share the code, regardless of their location or the use to which they put it. That confidence also has to extend to their colleagues, customers and community as well.
Source : The Universal Donor
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Universal Donor (Open Source Licensing)
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 75 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:06PM (4 children)
It's possible in the USA, and because it is possible, for those of us who live here, it's the best choice for unencumbered release, by far. Because no lawyers, no terms, no nothing.
It's impossible to be certain anywhere that various laws / customs aren't going to interfere with your will. That includes here in the USA - the USA is well known for changing things and applying them ex post facto. If you're looking for certainty, you should probably just jump off a bridge somewhere.
The bit about copyright is just as much of an assumption as any assumption about public domain, and more to the point, as things stand today, it's fluffing IP lawyers to no good purpose in the process.
Public domain makes the will and intent of the author 100% clear: anyone is intended to be able to use the stuff, any way they like, including changing it, adding it to their stuff, etc. If they change it, that change can be theirs or further given away, they can use it commercially, keep the changes to themselves or publish however, whatever. Actual, you know, freedom.
Public domain is the only mechanism that sidelines both lawyers and "you're free but you have to do what I say" restrictions like the GPL at the source. If there are nation-states out there that have twisted the idea of public domain into non-public-domain because [insert stupid reason here], that's for their citizens to fix. As always. We can't be trying to out-think every busted-ass regime out there, nor should we be wasting our time trying to. If you want to release PD, then go ahead and do it, and let the chips of the repressive countries fall where they may.
Further: other posts here talk about the importance of intent, and I agree. Your country can have whatever silly-ass law it wants about PD, but it can't make me attack you. If I say it's PD, it's bloody well PD. Yes, you might have to be careful what you do in your country with your similarly impeded peers, but again, that's for you to fix - it's not my country, it's yours.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 19 2018, @02:51PM (3 children)
Except that if you use copyright to ensure freedom instead of restrict it, enemies of that freedom can't take those assurances away without breaking the legal framework that allows them to restrict the flow of information to begin with. They say to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday January 21 2018, @05:17AM (2 children)
Except that actually doesn't work. It's an illusion the lawyers have deceived you into accepting.
The truth is, they can do it any time, anywhere. They do do it any time, anywhere. Fact: Locks only work when honest people try the door. All you're doing with these procedures is inconveniencing the heck out of yourself, hamstringing the most valuable and honest commercial enterprises, and enriching IP lawyers.
Imposing restrictive and/or oppressive copyright on software quite literally bestows the benefits of the code first and foremost on those who don't care what your license says. The very "evildoers" you would actually be concerned about. If you make using your code illegal, then only criminals will have your code. You're putting weights on entirely the wrong side of the scale. Just like those who copy-protect media. It doesn't actually work, but it manages to considerably disadvantage and inconvenience and even make criminals out of the legitimate user base. You have climbed in bed with the very worst of the malefactors.
Likewise, using copyright to try to replicate the actual function of public domain is entirely misguided: you're putting a load on people who have access to the proper form of IP protection (disclaiming any forward protection / imposition for derivative code with PD) and wasting their time with "protection" that (a) doesn't work in any positive way, and (b) can cost them considerable money and time, and (c) actually benefits the very worst of those you're worried might take advantage, because they're going to hide what they do and you are incredibly unlikely to catch them at it, either. You're also handing the advantage to regimes that break the idea of PD — the very last thing you should want to do. The idea of public domain is what you should be spreading about, so that no right-minded society's citizens are disadvantaged.
And to be perfectly clear: societies that use copyright as a bludgeon, forbidding the author to dispose of it by putting a work in the public domain: Those societies are some of the worst offenders against freedom. They're the ones making you support the IP lawyers and disadvantage those who would otherwise happily use your work.
Copyright is long past its sell-by date for the free software idea. It's exactly like going to the time and expense to build a wall for defense when your opponents have aircraft: Not only does it not work, you are wasting resources you could have used for actual worthy projects, inconveniencing your own citizens, and all the while paying the wall builders who are simply taking advantage of your naiveté.
Clear your mind: Defy invalid social norms.
This post is released to the Public Domain by me, its original author.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday January 22 2018, @02:45PM (1 child)
Sorry, I didn't read your whole response, because you completely misunderstood the most basic point you were responding to. The bad guys are the guys that make the rules. I don't give a rat's ass what lawbreakers do, because I can't control them anyway. But the copyright industry and their army of lawyers? Their enterprise requires that they can show they are following the rules. Sure, they can change the rules. And maybe rule-making is a game we can't win. But "good" and "bad" only tell us what side we're on, not which side will win. Equating those who make and follow the law with criminals who don't is wholly ridiculous.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday January 22 2018, @04:24PM
Which is very funny, because I made precisely that point:
But, hey. You carry on responding to posts you didn't actually read. I'm sure that'll work out really well for you going forward.