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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:39PM (58 children)
What keeps a project "properly" open is the will of each individual, not legalese. That's why, say, the various BSDs tend to offer just as much freedom as those projects that have been infected with the GPL.
You cannot be worried about other people taking the work as part of a closed source project. Make your open source project so good, that any closed-source venture doesn't matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:37PM
Indeed you cannot stop individual developers from being uncooperative and closing your source, particularly if you are unwilling to sue them.
(Score: 3, Touché) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:51PM (41 children)
Said with all the ignorance of a true Libertarian.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:57PM (1 child)
We're all waiting for what that means.
At least the supposed "Libertarian" provided a basis for thinking about this stuff.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:43PM
Where?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:02PM (34 children)
Are your Communist GNU feelings hurt, dude?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:06PM (33 children)
Yes.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:15PM (20 children)
Man oh man I can't wait until we're all living in the post scarcity GNU Utopia where we all code free software for fun after working full time jobs of ten hours a week at asteroid prospecting and robot repair.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:01PM (13 children)
It's coming soon! Using FOSS allows us all the benefit of being able to stand on the shoulders of giants. Here in the UK, we're about to undergo a revolution in agricultural automation to make up for the shortage of farm labourers. All that good food will get cheaper.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:11PM (12 children)
Cheap food, that's just brilliant. I want to live in council housing on benefits while I watch Doctor Who and code FOSS all night!!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:22PM (11 children)
Get used to it. There won't be many jobs for humans soon. We're going to have to think of something else to do with our time.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:34PM (9 children)
I can think of plenty of things to do with my time. Trouble is I can't maintain my lifestyle of the living without food and shelter. Coding doesn't pay the bills because the market value of open source is zero. Thank Stallman for starting the race to the bottom which will make all coders destitute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:39PM (1 child)
so a wage-slave retarded libertarian. enjoy swimming in your own ignorance
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:46PM
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm can't be a wage-slave since I'm unemployed, and I vote Green.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:36PM (6 children)
Funny that, I've been making a good living coding on FOSS platforms for over fifteen years now. End user applications are not where the money is. You have to think shoulders of giants.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:02PM (5 children)
Funny, my personal experience is exactly the opposite.
I've spent my career earning jack shit for making backend networking code that lets people communicate with each other. They never communicate with me, though. I'm nobody.
Software behind the scenes that nobody knows or cares about isn't valuable enough to pay for. It's just not visible enough.
Interesting choice of words, "coding on FOSS platforms." How much of your actual code is open source, dear person who pretends to code open source for pay?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:53PM (3 children)
I never pretended to code open source for pay, although I did work for $LARGEUNIXCO many years ago integrating FOSS into the OS (and I have 3 lines of code in the kernel, which was open sourced...)
In my spare time I dabble and have put one or two silly little things on the Intertubes, mostly for comedy value.
However, I have invested time and energy helping newbies get up to speed with Linux (privately and in a corporate setting) so I'm not a complete and utter leach on "the Community." And I have a Slackware subscription.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @09:04PM (2 children)
Spoken like a leech.
Vote Tory to keep your ill-gotten money.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @09:07PM (1 child)
Ha ha! :-)
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:58AM
For the full effect, let Nelson do that for you.
Simpsons clip - 3 seconds [youtube.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @09:02PM
Oh yes it is. One particular thing I worked on is on at least 500 000 devices. That was years ago. I bet it's twice that now.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @01:17AM
Starve?
(Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:52PM (4 children)
FTFY
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:33PM (3 children)
GNU's Not Utopia
You're right. It's a dystopian plot designed to make everyone as poor as RMS.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:54PM (2 children)
It's a brave GNU world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:09PM (1 child)
The GNU lifestyle is great if you like living like a bum and being treated like shit. But let's be real. Open source doesn't pay a dime. You can write as much code as you like but there's no money to be made by coding.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:30PM
I've heard
Harry PotterLennart Poettering can transmute unnecessary complexity into user support contracts.(Score: 3, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday January 19 2018, @12:25AM
I don't think you understand how enlightened self interest [wikipedia.org] works.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:21PM (11 children)
When you make the State stronger to enforce collectivism, you have simply transferred power from one group of capitalists to another, and Karl Marx turns over in his grave.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Dr Spin on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:30PM (1 child)
Karl Marx turns over in his grave
If we can get him turning fast enough, it will be a good source of renewable energy.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:06PM
Like this? [smbc-comics.com]
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:34PM (7 children)
The State (or, more precisely, an organization that calls itself "government") is founded on the principle of "do-as-I-say" coercion rather than on "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation; the State is inherently anti-Capitalism; the State is not just another group of Capitalists.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:14PM (6 children)
The straw man libertarian strikes again!
No, your distinction is meaningless, and the contract law that capitalists rely upon only exists at the whim of the State anyway. You could more accurately say that capitalists use "do-as-we-previously-agreed-because-the-state-says" coercion, which is also, big surprise, exactly the same as what constitutional governments use. And either of them can (and do!) use your caveat of "but-the-state-can-make-exceptions".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:28PM (5 children)
Contract enforcement is a service like any other; there's no inherent need for some culturally blessed monopoly.
Indeed, competing enforcement agencies would be a much better Separation of Powers.
That is to say, your premise is what is in dispute.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:30PM (4 children)
What you are describing sounds like feudal Europe. Which I may remind you is called the "dark ages" for a reason.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:39PM
Also, feudalism is not the reason that period was called "the Dark Ages".
Is there no end to your inanity?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:35PM (2 children)
The black plague and Mongols killing everybody, book burnings, etc, is why it's called the dark ages. Lack of strong central authority is not.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 19 2018, @03:09PM (1 child)
Mongols are a strong external threat that is best countered by a large unified defense force, which is impossible when feudal lords are too busy fighting each other.
Book burnings are a consequence of ideology and totalitarianism. I'd like to see somebody try to rationalize how the feudal system was not inherently anti-enlightenment and totalitarian.
The aforementioned squabbling feudal lords kept society from advancing by funneling its resources into a never-ending parade of small wars. Many, many times a potentially successful medieval society broke down when the strong central authority died and his many sons went about carving up the kingdom into little warring fiefdoms.
The plague though, I'm not going to blame that on feudalism. But the dark ages includes centuries where the plague didn't even exist.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Saturday January 20 2018, @02:21PM
There book burnings were a result of the plague. Illiterates who were hopeless and disillusioned, but knew that pieces of paper recorded debts they owed, burned everything. There was also a big backlash from the church against the big rise in paganism and atheism that came during/after the plague. As for central authority resisting Mongols: See China.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:41PM
I see you've read Animal Farm.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:13PM (3 children)
Nope, he's exactly right. A lot of humans, when confronted with a set of rules, will try hard to figure out how to do what they want without violating the letter of the rules. Both programmers and lawyers tend to exhibit this characteristic, because it's beneficial in their chosen professions (a lot of programming is trying to make something possible within the constraints of the system that you have to work with).
If you create a complex license to try to force people to restrict what people can do with a project, then a lot of people will spend effort looking for loopholes. For example, the nVidia drivers work around the intention of the GPL. There is a binary blob that is entirely nVidia's IP (SGI and other lawsuits aside). There is a BSD-licensed shim that is a derived work of both the Linux kernel and blob. The GPL requirements come into effect in two ways. First, if you distribute the GPL'd code then anything that you ship linked to it is bound by the terms. That's fine, nVidia doesn't distribute their blob with the Linux kernel. Second, via something being a derived work. The blob is not a derived work of the kernel (directly or via the shim). The shim is a derived work of the kernel, but the GPL only requires that derived works provide the same freedoms as the GPL, not that they provide the same restrictions, so a BSD licensed shim is fine. Now nVidia has done a complete end-run around the GPL. Note that this does cause some problems for distributions (you can't ship the kernel and the nVidia driver together, so you end up shipping a package that downloads the blob from nVidia and installs it).
The best way of getting people to do something is to convince them that it's in their best interests. No license can do this, only a community. If a community makes it easy to submit patches then it's easy to convince someone that it's cheaper to submit their improvements upstream than to maintain a fork. If the community helps to fix bugs, then it's easy to convince them that it's worth developing things in the open.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:47PM (2 children)
No he isn't. He's trolling. Look at his wording and the pejorative term "infected with the GPL." In recent years, it has become for ACs to troll the GPL with wishy-washy pro-BSD arguments and FUD regarding the GPL. In my opinion there is a place for BSD, GPL, closed-source, Public Domain and all sorts of licenses (and lack thereof) for software. Many people, and corporations prefer BSD because it gives them the right to take code developed by others, to modify it and to distribute the binaries of the changed code without having an obligation to make the changed source code available to the end user. This is in fundamental contrast to the GPL, which enforces this right for the end user. Personally, in my own time, at home, I prefer GPL but I'm not an ideological purist. I use all kinds of FOSS and very little closed-source software. Over the years I have developed various proprietary embedded systems, on FOSS and non-FOSS platforms. None of them infringed the GPL or BSD or any other license. Everything was done ethically and legally. I've spoken up to senior management with concerns in a polite and constructive way when I've seen things that needed addressing, and they always were.
Indeed they will. That's how the law works, and it's how it has to work in a democracy. I fully support that, with the caveat that the law is continually reviewed, revised, amended with full public scrutiny as required.
Correct. I've sat in on various presentations about Intellectual Property by some pretty well qualified and intelligent lawyers.
Yes, the licenses are necessary, but not sufficient.
Yes. Any how does this relate to "GPL infection" as the OP trolled? If you don't like the code/language/license/community chose a different package. If you can't find one for free, write one yourself, pay someone to write one or get one off the shelf.
This is freedom of choice, liberty and an open and free market. To which part specifically do you and our OP troll object?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:58PM (1 child)
Thanks for confirming you don't get paid for FOSS. You just exploit the free labor of everyone who never got paid for the FOSS you use. How do you live with yourself knowing you benefit from standing on the shoulders of starving coders?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday January 19 2018, @07:50AM
Congratulations on an ignorant and simplistic attempt at trolling. You completely miss the point of FOSS and its ecosystem.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:56PM (5 children)
Thank you for demonstrating your bias that openly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:50PM (4 children)
If only Stallman could have been satisfied with BSD then there wouldn't have been colossal duplication of effort to reinvent Unix as GNU/Linux.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:59PM (2 children)
At the time, BSD Unix was entirely proprietary and closed-source, and likely would have remained so indefinitely were it not for competition from GNU.
If only people were all benevolent altruists who would instinctively share all their innovations and improvements freely with their users, and those whose shoulders they have stood upon, BSD would have been sufficient.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:13PM (1 child)
The whole point is that the license doesn't seem to matter.
The BSDs are largely FOSS now not because of the GPL, but because of a shift in thinking—as the OP said, FOSS is an act of individual will, not legalese.
BSD became FOSS due to the work of not Stallman, but rather the work of Bill and Lynne Jolitz [wikipedia.org]. And, you know what? Thank goodness for the initial proprietary software; someone had to pay to develop the ideas of Unix in the first place.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:06PM
"The 386BSD port [by Jolitzes] was possible because, partly influenced by Stallman, Berkeley hacker Keith Bostic had begun an effort to clean AT&T proprietary code out of the BSD sources in 1988." -- http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html [faqs.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:04PM
BSD was proprietary when Stallman started his efforts. And it still might be if it wasn't for Stallman and other free software advocates.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:41PM (6 children)
The problem with BSD licensing, from my point of view at least: The primary user of BSD these days is Apple. So basically working on BSD code is you (or your firm, if somebody's paying you) putting in your hours so that Apple can get whatever great innovations you come up with for free.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:42PM (1 child)
I don't see how that negatively affects you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:57PM
It's the difference between, say, volunteering at the local food bank, and volunteering to work for Walmart for free. One is giving away your time for the greater public good, one is giving away your time so somebody who's already rich can get richer.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:39PM (2 children)
You really don't get what open source is all about, do you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:46PM (1 child)
Open source is about slave labor. Unpaid slaves do the work. Corporations get the profits.
By convincing programmers to use the GPL, RMS sold programmers into slavery.
GNU is a cult and RMS is a slave trader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @07:02AM
Lame troll is lame. Actually Stallman as the GPL creator is the one person protecting software freedom.
The corporations cannot abuse your (A)GPL'd software but they can and do use MIT, BSD and PD stuff all the time.
If you can't make money as a programmer, do something else or learn some useful skill as a programmer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @01:57AM
So, in summary, BSD licensing is bad "because Apple." You know, you've got me thinking. Google uses a GPL licensed operating system as a thin layer between hardware and massive amounts of proprietary software. I don't like GPL licensed software "because Google". I guess I'm off to install Windows. At least Microsoft writes all their own stuff!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:07PM
You, and the other proponents of the *BSD license because "MUH FREEDUMBZ" are missing an important point, one I've cribbed from a close friend but came up with myself too: the fewest restrictions up-front does not necessarily equal the most freedom for all.
Basically, imagine it like this: you have two playgrounds. One of them has no rules imposed by the adults. The other has a set of rules specifically intended to keep the kids from hurting one another. They're allowed to play how they wish but they don't get to, for example, play "everyone gang up on one kid and beat the tar out of him/her."
Which one do you think, over time, will be the one kids enjoy playing in more?
When you understand this, you'll understand why the GPL is important. The BSD license has its place, but it's a rather r-type strategy and not one guaranteed to pay dividends for humanity in general in the long run.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:35AM
it doesn't only matter if bsd stayed free. another unacceptable outcome is that leech ass corporations and devs will use your code to subjugate others when they make their version unfree.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:24PM (1 child)
Seems a bit odd that TFA makes no mention whatsoever of what you should use instead of public domain. Anyway, it is well known [opensource.org] that [opensource.org] public domain is an awful way to release software as 'copycentre', and that the Modified BSD Licence is the way to go.
There are other contenders, like the Unlicence and the WTFPL and CC0, but they're [stackexchange.com] not wise [stackexchange.com] choices either. Just go with Modified BSD. The FreeBSD guys already thought this over.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:28PM
Forgive the self-reply, but a related fun fact: the FSF recommend [gnu.org] the Apache Licence for copycenter licensing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by meustrus on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:32PM (13 children)
The linked article is sadly missing its thesis. That's probably because it's actually a follow-up to this article [meshedinsights.com], which explains why "public domain" doesn't (necessarily) meet the requirements of open source. Particularly informative is this:
This argument applies to a lot of things, but not to public domain projects like SQLite which have gone to significant lengths [sqlite.org] to ensure that their software is freely available even when putting it into the public domain is not locally possible.
The same arguments could be made against "open source" licenses, however, in countries which have fundamentally different licensing schemes and do not recognize foreign copyright. No such countries come to mind, so this argument is only hypothetical. But this fact remains: your rights are subject to who governs them, making "universal" rights fundamentally impossible.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:45PM (3 children)
A government cannot grant rights; a government can only restrict rights.
That is important distinction.
There may indeed be universal rights, but it's likely some government (if not every government) is trashing them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:37PM
You the powerless only have rights if you can convince the powerful to recognize your rights
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday January 19 2018, @01:35AM
Your body restricts the right of any cell to develop into a cancerous tumor - is that restricting cells rights, or giving cells the right to live in a system that doesn't destroy itself?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 19 2018, @02:48PM
Yeah right. Let's set you free in the wilderness and see how many of your "universal rights" the bears will respect.
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 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.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday January 18 2018, @09:07PM (3 children)
I think you're right about filling in that this was directly stated to be a reply to an earlier article (which I haven't read yet, thanks for the C/P).
I wouldn't argue that public domain isn't a local conclusion. Perhaps more appropriately it's a defense against infringement or IP claims - it's not tested until and unless a suit is made over it and nobody "invented" it but rather it is a de facto condition which exists... that people started using as if it was a license grant. (That's my conclusion, feel free to disagree.)
But where he is putting the cart before the horse is (from TFA):
We have indeed seen people try to shift copyright into the status of unalienable moral right. My personal belief is that it should be a specialized form of property right and nothing more.
In the end, though, it all comes down to trust. If I assert that code is PD and is fit for use, and I'm wrong, does the project get to use that as a defense? And how is that any different from if I assert that code is GPL or CC licensed and legally fit for use, and I'm wrong? (Assuming in both cases it was proprietary to some other rights holder...)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 19 2018, @03:01PM (2 children)
The advantage of potentially unlimited "moral" copyright is that it neuters the argument for unlimited copyright in general. If Disney had legal assurance that nobody could make a porno out of Steamboat Willy, they would have far less grounds to keep Steamboat Willy unavailable for derivative works.
It does real harm to Disney's future properties having non-family-friendly derivative content floating around out there. Moral rights fix that problem while leaving the door open for Disney to lose absolute control over the financial proceeds of old ideas. With such a framework in place, all that remains are economic arguments, which favor dumping perpetual copyright because it encourages companies like Disney to sit on a treasure hoard of old content and stop producing useful new ideas.
Just a pragmatic and preliminary thought on moral rights.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 19 2018, @03:28PM (1 child)
Very interesting. I wasn't focusing quite so much on the moral dimension as I was the idea that copyright is unalienable. IMVVVHO copyright is something that should not vest automatically without some form of registration and attestation in the medium it's fixed in. The notion that "it's somebody's with rights by default" is the issue for me, and I'd much rather have it be, "it's everybody's unless you have taken steps to claim it is your right uniquely." The process to establish a registry that something has a copyright as of a certain date should likewise not be onerous or expensive in the digital age, more like a public registry which would allow legal claims to have some prima facie justification because the third party registrar can attest that someone requested an item have protection as of a certain date. And done publicly because I also have issues with, "See, this was ours because we wrote it and hid it in a vault until just now. Surprise!" An entity should need to have it registered, even if confidentially. So we won't even go to patent amendments - I'm digressing severely enough anyway.
But I can see your point, that disallowance of derivative works works in society's favor / that assurance would enable an eventual copies to be made so long as the work was unaltered.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 19 2018, @04:01PM
The immediate problem with that is that registration isn't free, and small players don't know if what they've got is worth anything until they show it to somebody else (i.e. a publisher). Without automatic copyright protections, there's nothing to stop that person from publishing it without paying the creator.
Of course this isn't a problem with self-publishing. And the internet has made self-publishing actually feasible for pretty much anything. But the internet has also proven that without effective curation, there's very little difference between "this book/game/app was never published" and "this book/game/app is buried in a deluge of others of wildly varying quality".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?