heresy?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Mar 25, 2009 6:55 PM EDT |
Well, from the authors comments, he probably should consider joining a few of us in trying to put a gag on RMS too. Because killing the GPL is exactly what he is about these days. If you kill copyright (i.e. no need for copyleft) and make everything public domain, then the GPL is dead, because it is a copyright license. Without copyright then there is no GPL. Without that little bit of copyright protection, then the 'give back' clause also becomes moot. All code can then be subsumed into what ever project $EVIL_CORP wishes, no changes or modifications need be given back, and absolutely nothing says that they need to make any code available in any way shape or form to anyone at anytime. So just who is trying spouting heresy? Copyright isn't damaging to Free Software ... it's the only thing that guarantees Free Software stays Free. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 25, 2009 8:30 PM EDT |
I've seen ESR give this talk before. His argument is, basically, that since "share the code" is so MUCH more efficient than proprietary code, even without the GPL shared code will do so much better than proprietary that it will win (whatever that means). That may be true in the exceptionally long run, but I don't have a long run. I have now, and right now since there is INSANE levels of copyright "protection", there must be "copyleft" in order to balance the insanity. Yes, if there were no government granted copyright monopoly, something with the effect of the GPL would not be needed. And if there weren't verbs, we'd all be speaking K?len. http://www.terjemar.net/kelen.php But we're not, there is, so we do. |
| ColonelPanik Mar 25, 2009 8:36 PM EDT |
No IP, everything Public Domain? Sounds good to me. How do you make a profit from your smarts? I don't care how, but share the knowledge, please. |
| KernelShepard Mar 25, 2009 9:17 PM EDT |
It's rare for me to actually agree with ESR, but this time I have to say he actually has a point in my humble opinion. Of course, I'm more partial to the BSD philosophy than the FSF's. I think that licenses like the GPL were necessary for "bootstrapping" the free software movement, but now that it's got so much momentum, it's starting to become more of a hindrance in some ways (it prevents sharing code with BSD or X11 licensed projects, which unfortunately results in duplication of efforts). If BSD and X11 projects could use code under the GPL (and LGPL), then it would be a lot less of an issue (for me at least). I don't mind that authors of (L)GPL'd code don't want the possibility of their code being used by a proprietary vendor (I can certainly understand and respect that), but unfortunately it gets in the way of authors of BSD/X11 projects. Luckily contacting the authors of these libs can sometimes get the license changed (they simply allowed autoconf to pull in the default COPYING file or some such; which, as I've discovered, is how the GPLv3 has proliferated - often after contacting the authors of GPLv3 projects, I've discovered they never intended to release GPLv3 and it turned out that the COPYING symlink was updated along with their autoconf package updates - but I guess that's the subject of another rant). |
| azerthoth Mar 25, 2009 9:38 PM EDT |
@Colonel. public domain ... does not mean that the code is magically available, looking at how M$ runs, I would say that they would snatch all the previously forbidden code and no one would be any wiser. In other words, a great deal for M$ and the high hard one for open source. |
| ColonelPanik Mar 25, 2009 10:34 PM EDT |
az.... I don't understand, guess there are different levels of Public Domain?
Here is what I am talking about:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/openmit.html All knowledge available to all people. No gate keepers. No one with power because of secret knowledge. Open Source World. |
| gus3 Mar 25, 2009 10:47 PM EDT |
In a world without walls or doors, who needs Gates or Windows? |
| azerthoth Mar 25, 2009 10:51 PM EDT |
CP public domain is public domain ... tell me where it forces anyone to actually release to code? Get the picture ... even without a copyright, code that doesn't exist in the wild, doesn't exist. It has to be released to the public for it to be in public domain, make sense now. Another way to put it, lets say I have just written a game that will knock WoW off the gaming market, I keep the code locked down tight and everyone who works for me understands that any single line of code gets released and they explain to their family why they arent getting paychecks anymore. Where exactly is that copyrightless 'public domain' code? I am not forced to release it at all. |
| techiem2 Mar 25, 2009 11:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:In a world without walls or doors, who needs Gates or Windows? lol. Which reminds me of the current Windows ads. "Windows: Life without Walls" To which I respond: "If there are no Walls, why would I want Windows?" |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2009 11:45 PM EDT |
Actually it's "In a world without Walls or Fences, who needs Windows and gates." The Windows ad really does contradict itself, because Windows need Walls to exist, and with out walls Windows is unnecessary. |
| gus3 Mar 26, 2009 12:58 AM EDT |
I never actually saw it myself; my semi-geeky mother quoted it to me. Even odds that she or I got it wrong. |
| tuxtom Mar 26, 2009 5:06 AM EDT |
A world where the workers collectively own the means of production. |
| tracyanne Mar 26, 2009 5:36 AM EDT |
It's called a Collective, or a Co Operative, and it doesn't have to apply to workers, there are also buying co operatives, where a group of people get together so they can purchase goods at lower prices, by purchases in bulk. |
| r_a_trip Mar 26, 2009 7:06 AM EDT |
@CP ... I don't understand, guess there are different levels of Public Domain? No there is only one level of public domain. No copyright protection. It's no obligations either. Public domain doesn't mean there are no ways to keep your stuff proprietary. Imagine a world without copyright. It would mean there are no automatic protections against copying a work. Let's take the MS Empire as an example in this copyrightless world. MS releases only binaries. Absence of copyright doesn't compel them to release the source. Since there is no copyright, anyone could disassemble the binary and try to find out what MS' code does. To stop this, MS obfuscates the code beyond recognition. The way MS builds that code internally and keeps track of what does what and how is a trade secret. Free Software would gain nothing and lose a lot. Since Free Software code is in the open, MS could incorporate it and keep their modifications secret. If one writes code for the benefit of all, regardless of use or derivation, then the above poses no problems. If one agrees that it is desirable to maximize the impact of available code with a share and share alike atmosphere, then the above is detrimental. |
| TxtEdMacs Mar 26, 2009 8:11 AM EDT |
just a reminder: this is the co-founder of OSI, whose great gift was spewing a myriad of incompatible Open Source licenses. Therefore, I would not be too quick to follow his prescription to a Liberty nirvana. YBT P.S. Since so many here on LXer have been trampling upon my turf of injecting weak humor into various discussion threads, while I have been busy I am forced to lay down the gauntlet to this unprovoked encroachment. Despite my attempts to send cease and desist notices to stop this lawless behaviour, I have been met by either blatantly disregard or thinly disguised contempt (you really hurt my feelings). Thus, I leave it to your discerning minds to apply the proper meaning tags to my spoutings. Thank you for your attention. |
| gus3 Mar 26, 2009 10:56 AM EDT |
@r_a: Does a work entering Public Domain also apply to its derivatives? Could I make a video montage using only public domain works, then copyright the new work? When Queen and David Bowie made "Under Pressure," the video was a rush job, so all the clips were from old silent movies that had entered P.D. I would think the video is copyrightable based on the new work. Or would only the soundtrack for it carry the copyright? IANAL, yaddayadda, which is why I'm asking. |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2009 11:08 AM EDT |
One example of what happens to public domain code is Dan Bernsteins' DJBDNS and other projects. He released them into the public domain some years ago-- has any community built up around them? Are any of them in Linux distros now? True, one example doesn't prove anything, though this seems a good one to examine because DJB has such a loyal following, so we might expect some sort of effort. But it's still just poking along without any organized effort to maintain and distribute it. Public domain stuff cannot be copyrighted. |
| azerthoth Mar 26, 2009 11:22 AM EDT |
gus, the individual clips themselves would be public domain, the montage being a unique derivative would hold its own copyright, which in this case would be very limited, as it would be the montage not the individual scenes. The music behind it, already holds its own copyright with full RIAA implications to boot. IANAL, but thats how I read it. |
| ColonelPanik Mar 26, 2009 11:37 AM EDT |
Everyone is talking from a historical model. Lets project ourselves into the future,
it seems reasonable to think that is where we are going. The words we use are almost DOA. What is going to happen, I/we hope, is some kind of freedom of thought and action. If Bruce Sterling were posting here he would have a newly coined word for what I have been talking about. What will and should happen is something that has never happened before in history. So the answer will be something that we have never seen before. If people have the knowledge and tools and the education and freedom to use that knowledge and tools, we are going to see if not a Brave New World at least a not afraid old world. |
| azerthoth Mar 26, 2009 11:54 AM EDT |
and rainbow fairies will sit on everyones shoulders ... |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 26, 2009 12:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:He released them into the public domain some years ago-- has any community built up around them? Are any of them in Linux distros now? I don't know about DJBDNS, but Qmail was only in very few Linux distros because of his old license(*). Now that it's public domain it's packaged by many, including Debian. (*) For those unaware, his old license was something like BSD with the exception that you could not distribute binaries of derivatives. Only source code distribution was allowed. |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2009 1:23 PM EDT |
Debian packages only the qmail sources in the Non-Free repo. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 26, 2009 1:39 PM EDT |
Indeed. Oops. My bad. Apparently there are some technical problems with the binary package that need to be resolved. But DJBDNS made it in time :-) http://packages.debian.org/lenny/djbdns |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!