I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.
If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong.
The fact that the proprietary code is based on GPL code just shows that the ex-Honey folks are hypocrites: they're trying to use copyright to control their code, but breaking the same rules in the way they reuse others' code.
> If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft
No, this is absolutely incorrect. GPL requires copyright (or similar mechanism) to function. Without copyright, anyone could take the GPL'd code and release a compiled binary without releasing source. Releasing the source is the "payment" for being granted a license to copy the original code; without releasing the source, you are in violation of the author's copyright. No one who wants to use the GPL to protect their and their users' rights would advocate for eliminating copyright, because the GPL's goals cannot be achieved without copyright.
But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern copyright regime.
Hmm okay yeah, I buy that. Good rebuttal, I retract my comment :)
How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?
I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.
don't you benefit from taxes?
Doesn't work with DRM protected media. Version 1 will be pulled from circulation shortly before the time runs out, version 2 will be slightly altered and qualify for a brand new 14 year copyright. Buyers of version 1 will not receive any refunds and will be expected to pay the full price for version 2.
Downloading software from a server means you need to have access to that server, possible through an account. There is also a fair amount of precedence covering the enforceability of TOS and limitations of server access, especially when a company earn profit on intentionally ignoring them.
Contract law has its own issue, and copyright is generally seen as much easier to understand and enforce, but if contract law can be used to control how software and data is used after a user has downloaded it then it could be used for something like GPL.
The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such.
I don't agree with this maximalist approach because many forms of knowledge wouldn't be created without a financial incentive. But there's many niches in the economy where free software creates greater economic benefit than a proprietary solution.
This does not match my understanding. My understanding is that the goal of the GPL is to weaponize the copyright system to enforce copyleft. Many creators and supporters of the GPL do oppose IP laws (at least in their current form) but the goal specifically of the GPL isn't to destroy copyright, it's to weaponize it to accomplish higher purposes.
The fact that those terms are not for money is the implimentation detail.
The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not.
Just like the normal terms for money, your choice is you can take it according to the terms, or leave it. Not just take it and ignore the terms.
It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free.
stealing from the commons, basically.
If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation.
If you want to use their code, you have to join the company. Fortunately for you, all you have to do to join the company is to agree to use the same license for you own code as the company already does. If you agree to that, you are free to use any or all of the code "owned" by the company.
However, if you do not agree to the company's terms - i.e. you wish to use a different license - then you are not a part of the company and have no legal right to use any of the company's code. You may of course continue with your own software, but you cannot benefit from the amassed resource that is the company's own code (though of course reading it is allowed).
There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park.
The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't fence off a part for yourself and start operating your tire-burning business in it. The body of people who either first donated it or the tax payers who voted for it set some terms for usage, and now you can either enjoy the goods under those terms or not.
But what's interesting is how some people have this kind of reaction and try to come up with this kind of argument over the act of being generous.
Are you sure GPL isn't even worse than you said? Why be so nice? Are you sure it doesn't also eat babies?
You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL.
You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real commons have historically been managed with a variety of social and civic techniques.
However, precisely because of this widespread repeating of Hardin's use of the term "commons", I tend to doubt that random mentions on HN of "the commons" actually means "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse". Rather, it does indeed tend to be a synonym for "public domain".
BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living.
In the much more currently commonplace use of the term as "a bunch of resources that people can just use", no.
That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as:
"You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL."
I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If you're just arbitrarily declaring it actually means "public domain" I say you don't get to declare that and inventing your own definitions for terms is not a valid argument or even valid comminication, and there is no further point in attempting to communicate with anyone doing that.
I'm not making up my own definitions. I'm contrasting Garrett Hardin's use of the term in his famous book "Tragedy of the Commons", which is the way most people on HN use it with Elinor Ostrom's much more enlightened definition of it in her refutations of Hardin's claims (refutations that Hardin has accepted).
In Ostrom's sense, yes, GPL'ed code comprises a commons. In Hardin's sense, it does not (or at least, it has a bunch of features to it that render his entire thesis about commons inapplicable).
and you can't burn tyres in the park.
no it seems that you've just been triggered - I did mean it in the above sense. that's why it's offensive when somebody takes gpl code and puts it in proprietary code that they distribute.
public domain means do as you want, even burn tyres in the park.
I make changes to gpl code all the time. I never release the changes because my coding is far too embarrassing. Nobody forces me to release anything. I can and do compile it with gpl incompatible links, not a problem.
I just don’t distribute it.
Uh, no there aren't. The GPL's requirements only kick in when I try to redistribute: that's why the license is in a file called COPYING. It's not an EULA: you don't need to agree with it to use GPL'd software.
But they'd have to take effect right away, otherwise you'd be illegally copying copyrighted software :). It is the GPL license that grants personal use without restriction.
I don't need to be granted permission to run a program on my own computer.
> I don't need to be granted permission to run a program on my own computer.
Correct, you can run programs on your computer without permission. It's the 'loading the program on to your disk' part that you may need permission for.
[0]: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
> Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.
Why do you try say that means there are no terms?
The terms are ridiculously generous. But there are terms and those are they.
GPL was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work.
The GPL and copyright are both about controlling what other people do with something you made. The MIT, or BSD license, or some other very permissive license that doesn't set down restrictions are arguably different from copyright. But the GPL isn't the opposite of copyright. It's just has different terms of use.
No, public domain is the opposite of copyright. The GPL absolutely does give the author rights to dictate how people copy the software -- in fact -- even more so than many other open source licenses.
I'm mixed, because it's an entire spectrum and there's no clear sand in the ground. It's a very nuanced topic.
But fundamentally, if people want to make sure they can benefit most from their creations, they need some way to protect themselves. Otherwise the biggest wallet will grab the idea, out-advertise you, and out support you.
That's why I always vied for minimizing copyright periods, not abolishing the idea. Creators should benefit: creators have almost zero need to benefit almost a century after they die. the original 14 + 14 made enough sense and can still work: something that was basically an average lifetime back then and is now most of a working career. Those rights can transfer to whoever they want, and it would be transferred to a beneficiary posthumously. But when 28 is up, it's up.
Sure they'll use IP as a means to an end, but that doesn't mean they believe IP is a good idea in general. It's just one of few tools that exist to solve it.
In an ideal world all software would be forced to be FOSS, and we'd have to come up with ways of funding it that aren't based on artificial scarcity.
Like, what if I want to release a rather difficult puzzle in the form of an obfuscated executable and provide a reward to the first person who solves it? If I’m required to release the source code upon request, then that kind of spoils the puzzle. (Sure, I can say that anyone who gets the source code this way is ineligible for the prize, but how could I tell?)
This is of course a somewhat silly and niche edge case. Still though, it doesn’t seem natural/appropriate for a law would prevent such a thing.
Whereas, agreeing to only distribute modifications I make to some software written by others if I’m willing to distribute the source code to my modifications, well, that would just be an agreement I would be making, and seems unobjectionable.
Though, I wouldn’t really claim that all IP is illegitimate. I think many IP protections go way too far and last too long, but, I think some amount of copyright and patents is probably a good idea, though for a much shorter duration. So maybe I’m not really in the camp being described.
I think the freedoms described in the GPL are good.
I guess one alternative could be to say that all software written “for a useful purpose” (or something like that) has to have the source code made available, and that could handle the puzzle case I mentioned?
It does seem important to avoid the case where one needs to use some software for something but is prevented from modifying it due to not having the source code.
So… maybe if one is only required to provide the source code if someone could reasonably be described as “needing” the software for something? (E.g. if you “need it in order to get your printer working”, or the like.)
You can make a physical item intentionally hard to work with or modify, but I see that as a shortcoming of our current legal standard—that's why we need some kind of "right to repair" framework. Requiring people to distribute human-readable code alongside software follows the same underlying philosophy as physical "right to repair" requirements.
I am not saying that the puzzle author should have any legal authority to restrict people from disassembling the puzzle.
I’m just saying that the government shouldn’t compel the puzzle designer to distribute disassembled versions of the puzzle.
If other people want to take apart their rubix cubes, they’re free to, I just shouldn’t be forced to help them take it apart.
Potentially utilitarian software and creative software could be treated differently, e.g. have an escrow for games (for which user customizations are less important).
Obviously DRM to restrict user modifications is unethical and harmful toward functioning markets and should be illegal.
For what it's worth that's the camp I'm in as well, I'm just being a bit silly for the sake of argument.
It takes a certain kind of insanity to think that it's feasible to spend millions of dollars writing software when your customers are all entitled to take it for free.
Still, there are people who care about quality, and some of them also share their work with others. Those people would exist regardless of whether there is copyright or not. The only difference is, we won’t have LICENSE files anymore.
But no one complains and it lets them ship faster. So not much will change here.
I think we’re past even that point by now. Not only the code we ship now is slow, it’s also harder to build and maintain, and expensive to run. I have no idea how we got here to be honest.
What if I tell you I hand-coded something in asm, but secretly used a Rust compiler with an obfuscator?
I agree though. We should always intend for accurate and consistent language.
You seem to be basing your rejection of "gift economy" as a label for the latter on the basis that it's not done for entirely altruistic purpose. But that is generally true of gift economies - most people who participate in them (and I'm not just talking of software here!) are not doing it out of purely altruistic motives, and actually expect to receive benefit from such an economy as well. Usually this is cultural, but some people, like you, might consciously believe that it's the most efficient way to distribute goods (whatever their definition of "efficient" might be).
> I release my code under the GPL for selfish reasons: I want others to be able to improve it, and me to be able to take advantage of their improvements.
I suppose that metphor depends on what you think of community efforts. Like say, sharing a food recipe or a workout routine. I see see the framing as "giving it away". Even if your endgoal is an ultimately selfish search of "better recipe/routine to use".
1. Movie copyright is compared, by its owners and the law, to physical theft. This type of theft does not remove the physical use or any use from the owners.
2. GPL copyright only requires sharing changed code. Failing to disclose the changes actually does affect the owners in the way claimed.
They’re two different social contracts and we need different words for them. Honestly many social problems are like this.
The "copyright infringement (is / isn't) theft" argument is drivel on the same intellectual level as "corporations are people."
The corporation you probably thinking of right now is a small private government to run a for profit endeavor. But note that cities are also corporations.
Probably want to contact a lawyer for the nuances, but the thousand foot view is you create a corporation with yourself as chief officer, and others as backup officers. set your corporate law to make your backup officers useless until the death of the chief officer and strict guidelines as to how the backup officers are to manage corporate assets. then finally transfer assets to the corporation.
The point being, the thing that makes a corporation a corporation is its corporate law governing its members, thus the assertion that corporations are not people, they are governments.
I wasn't aware there was this community standard. I explicitly disagree with it and I presume many others here would as well. The contradiction exists only in your one sided assertion.
I think the position is more nuanced. Once I've paid for the movie then breaking it's "copyright circumvention measures" so I may copy it or display it for my own purposes and reasons is neither immoral or illegal regardless of what hollywood or the law they paid for says.
I also think that Copyright terms being the life of the author are explicitly in violation of the Constitution, let alone, life plus some arbitrary term. These laws have fallen out of the service of the many and into the hands of the few.
There's a habit to "point out the contradiction" in these forums. I think it's almost always misguided.
GPL: "The code must be shared" Downloading/Pirating movies. "The movies should be shared"
I don't think people that people who believe in the GPL and pirate movies often do so because "pirating is the right thing to do", but one can certainly make the case that they share the same basic idea.
I was paying for netflix until my kids could no longer watch from my house and my exwife's house. After that nonsense I just taught my kids how to find stuff for free.
I used to pirate all my games but now pay for all of it. I am trying to rack my head around why I stopped with games but having a hard time thinking of what made me change. For PC I just think it probably is risky running pirated software that may be malicious. For things like the switch well I have a older switch that can be fully modded but haven't due to not having the time to fully research all the ins and outs and not wanting my kids switch to be banned or something.
Copyright infringement, while it may be wrong, truely isn't akin to car theft. It is however akin to a stolen idea. A car theft deprives the rightful owner of the car, but they don't otherwise care that the thief now has a car. An idea theft doesn't deprive the thinker of the idea, but they care that the thief is benefiting from the idea without compensation. Yet they don't care if someone becomes aware of the idea, but keeps it to themself.
I don't care about the movie industry, and don't care if they lose money. I don't care about the software industry or if they lose money.
I do care about information being freely available whether its in the form of movies or source code - it's in no way contradictory for me to want people locking up source code to be stopped from doing so while also wanting to see more torrenting. Copyright law is a tool - much like fire. I don't want my house to burn down, but I also don't want the fire in the furnace to go out... is it contradictory that i want to use fire to keep warm but not have all my possessions destroyed?
The people in this community that says “copyright infringement isn’t theft” do not refer to copyright infringement where people exploit the work for-profit and put it out as their own (feel free to find a single occurrence to prove me wrong). The word plagiarism comes to mind, which is morally and (depending on country and circumstance) legally a bigger crime than copyright infringement. The legal system usually also recognize that exploitation done for-profit and large scale should be considered worse and punished harder.
It's about the idea that software (and, for many, all digital media) should be free. The GPL is designed to "infect" other projects, by forcing them to be free if the GPL code is included. It's using IP/copyright laws to combat profiteering in software (and, in the case of movies, Blender releases a GPL'd movie every few years).
It's the activists' FOSS license, unlike the MIT/BSD/Apache licenses, which are just the literal definition of Free and Open Source, no strings attached.
Copyright should not even exist to begin with. GPL is just there to try to use the system against itself by essentially forcing everything it touches to be public domain. GPL is barely above the copyright industry from a moral standpoint. That usually causes people to treat violations of it far more charitably. Nobody feels sorry for the trillion dollar copyright industry.
We live in a world where the same trillion dollar corporations who compare us all to high seas pirates who rape and burn will also engage in AI washing of copyrighted material at industrial scales. That's a far more interesting contradiction than what you're presenting and far more deserving of the people's indignation.
GPL violation: less people than intended can see the code.
In short: until society changes you play by its rules.
Copyright infringement may be criminal. But compared with theft there’s, rightly, a higher standard of proof required.
FSF address this issue directly. GPL is basically fighting fire with fire.
infringing on copyleft is like stealing from the poor
its the difference between robin hood and government corruption
Everyone from the foodbank to other homeless people would justifiably be furious at this scam artist when they learn more. That's the morally repugnant situation we find ourselves in with Honey.
Copyleft infringement is perhaps better thought of as stealing from a foodbank than government corruption.
If copyright infringement isn't theft (our goal), then it doesn't matter.
Hope that makes some sense.
People are willing to let behavior slide when it aligns with their interests, but will call it out when the "other team" does it.
- Copyright abuse of games, movies, commercial software vs open source software
- Censorship of conservative speech vs censorship of liberal speech
- Genocide of one geopolitical entity vs another geopolitical entity
- Separation of church/state with mandated removal of religious symbols from students and government places vs freedom of religion with removal of LGBT symbols from students and government places
- Use of executive branch authority for [liberal goal] vs [conservative goal]
It's the same behavior on both sides, just different groups of people doing it.
If I use Photoshop's 1's and 0's and don't follow Photoshop's rules, I could be bankrupt and thrown onto the streets, dramatically decreasing my life expectancy, or locked up and legally enslaved by Tyson Foods.
If PayPal, an 85 billion dollar market cap figure that has monopolized a large amount of digital commerce, uses our 1's and 0's and don't follow our rules, we're laughed at, because we are not an 85 billion dollar market cap figure.
I expect you understand this on some level.
> - Censorship of conservative speech vs censorship of liberal speech
How so? There are many left aligned websites that remove conservative content, and many conservative websites that remove lefty content, many sites that allow both and many sites that remove both. Perhaps I misunderstood, apologies if so.
>It's the same behavior on both sides, just different groups of people doing it.
I'm actually curious to understand how you came to the conclusion that non-standard sexual and gender identities are equivalent to a religion to you.
I don't mean to start an argument here, but do you actually believe that endorsing a specific religion is the same as endorsing gay rights?
I'm LGBT and agnostic.
Schools banning crosses and the Swiss banning burqa are very similar to the LGBT flag removal in Michigan. It's all censorship to enforce the ideology you agree with.
A free society would do none of these things.
Instead we have two angry sides playing games to anger one another.
An LGBT flag is a symbol of support for people who are not cis and straight. It is not a religious symbol. It is not infringing on any individual's right to practice their own religion. This is pro first amendment.
Banning burqas is oppressing muslim students' right to practice their religion, and is anti first amendment.