Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

>People that license software under the BSD or MIT license probably would not mind that much if copyrights would be abolished or greatly restricted. Richard Stallman's world on the other hand would would fall apart.

I'm pretty sure that Stallman would love a post-copyright world, unless it led to a world of rented locked down single-purpose appliances run on gifted code - an outcome that MIT/BSD would be totally fine with.

AGPL and GPLv3 was a line in the sand to separate OSI types from people who feel that it is a problem that people are legally and physically alienated from their own tools.

IMO, releasing the source code that operates people's property is equivalent to putting a list of ingredients on a packaged food product.

View on HN

> IMO, releasing the source code that operates people's property is equivalent to putting a list of ingredients on a packaged food product.

pessimizer, I really like your metaphor, and I expect that using it is an easy way to introduce the subject to non-techies/non-law-geeks. Thank you!

As I reflected on your metaphor, my first thought was that releasing source code is actually more closely similar to releasing the ingredients as well as the recipe for the packaged food. But my thinking is probably not always correct: An author can release their source code that operates on my property (the ingredients), but they have no obligation to release the process to build/compile said source code (the recipe). (Hopefully I'm correct, I'm certainly open to constructive criticism).

That said, I truly appreciate it when developers offer easy-to-follow build instructions. However, for me at least, releasing the source almost always meets my needs for sufficient disclosure.

> they have no obligation to release the process to build/compile said source code (the recipe)

I was typing the same thing at the same time:)

IANAL, but by my reading, the GPL does include build scripts as part of the source code, e.g. from GPLv3:

"all the source code needed to generate [...] the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities"

Presumably this includes things like Makefiles.

> I'm pretty sure that Stallman would love a post-copyright world...

See http://rudd-o.com/monopolies-of-the-mind/thoughts-after-my-d...:

"Richard is against abolishing copyrights because, to his view, without copyright, enforcing copyleft would be impossible."

>...unless it led to a world of rented locked down single-purpose appliances run on gifted code...

There would have to be some other enforcement mechanism to prevent this for Stallman to be happy. He may not think that's possible, but I'm sure he would be happy to be proved wrong.

I think that a post-copyright regime could easily require code exposure for computers that are sold to consumers - that's far less radical than a post-copyright world would have already been in order to abolish the stuff.

Ironically it might be in the form of a EULA or developer agreement.

I see copyleft as a kind of parody on copyright. The name itself is a play on words. Its goal, respecting freedom, is an admirable one. Copyright's goal on the other hand is not very admirable. Copyright exists to enforce an artificial monopoly on ideas, the primary incentive of which is to protect the financial interests of creators. The impetus behind copyright is not all bad--after all, the laborer is worthy of his wages. But it has the nasty side effect of making creators over-protective of their work. If creators were fairly compensated for the value they provide they might not feel such a need for copyright protection. That's why I hope things like gittip and Kickstarter become more and more mainstream.

Copylefting a project says to the world that we value freedom more than compensation. It's the right message but depends on the wrong "logic" of copyright. Ideally, we would all reward companies that value freedom above profits, thus ensuring that freedom is profitable. But for now, copyleft exists as a strong-arm tactic against the over-protection of information. In the sense that copyleft utilizes copyright law to enforce freedom, it's hard to say whether GPL or other open source licenses have a greater respect for freedom.

> IMO, releasing the source code that operates people's property is equivalent to putting a list of ingredients on a packaged food product.

No, it's like putting the secret recipe to Coke on the bottle, or the food science process that makes Rice Crispies so crispy.

The GPL doesn't force you to tell people how to build your appliance, it forces you to tell them what's in it. That's not comparable to having to share the manufacturing process of a good, but is comparable to having to share what's in it.

That takes the view that the software is just an ingredient, instead of a crucial part of the "secret sauce" that makes the product special. In many cases, the software is the interesting part, not the hardware.

I'm not saying that software is just an ingredient, I'm saying that software is an ingredient. I don't know what it means to be just an ingredient. Rice isn't just an ingredient, nor water - unless I'm misunderstanding you.

In a post-copyright world, how can you force someone to release their modifications to your code? You couldn't argue that they were violating the terms of your copyright, because there is no copyright (in such a hypothetical world)! The GPL depends on copyright law to provide its teeth.

Do we have to rely on copyright to force people to list the ingredients in food?

No, but I'm having a hard time envisioning a regulatory body akin to the FDA for all software. And even ingredient lists contain terms like "natural flavors" which hide some arguably important aspects of the composition.

>I'm having a hard time envisioning a regulatory body akin to the FDA for all software.

I do too, because I think copyright will be extended until forever - but the power given to the FDA was hard to imagine before Lash-Lure. Maybe it'll take a badly coded toy or self-driving car to kill or maim a lot of people to create a Source Code Distribution Administration.

>ingredient lists contain terms like "natural flavors" which hide some arguably important aspects of the composition.

Controversially.

I don't see your point. In the analogy, copyright law is analogous to food safety law that requires labeling.

Copyright law isn't the only kind of law possible that would require people to release source code. The fact that it is even used to do that is a weird recursive act begun by an eccentric genius and a fortunate historical accident. That's my point.

Perhaps not, strictly speaking. It could go by another name, but it would by definition have to be some sort of intellectual property protection law.

> I'm pretty sure that Stallman would love a post-copyright world, unless it led to a world of rented locked down single-purpose appliances run on gifted code - an outcome that MIT/BSD would be totally fine with.

He would not. Abolishing copyright does not imply that people are required to release their sourcecode.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com