Djb and Copyright (2004)
thedjbway.b0llix.net
thedjbway.b0llix.net
[1] http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
I'd love to think that djb is correct, and that I do not need to distribute LICENSE files along with software in order for the users to have these freedoms that I expect them to have.
I want copyright to be abolished. I do use CC0 [3] for many works. For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If we abolish copyright, then I would be all the happier that my works no longer require the GPL to protect these freedoms.
Basically laws are complicated and you cannot even rely on how they read on face value.
If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist. Anyone could copy your software, modify it, build the modified binary, and distribute that modified binary without source, and locked down as tight as they want with DRM, and requiring updates be signed with a key only they have.
You could try to counter this, of course, by carefully only giving copies of your code to people who enter into a contractual relationship with you in which they agree to not do any of those things you do not like, and to keep your code secret from others who have not entered into such an agreement with you...but it only takes on person leaking the code to the public and then it is game over.
If we don't have copyright, then I'm okay with people distributing binaries without the source code. We're in a fundamentally different environment, and one that I think gives the correct freedoms. I should be able to make a binary and distribute it without the source. I should not be able to restrict what other people do with that binary, or source, if and when I give it to them. Economic models will evolve differently, for better or worse, but I don't think selecting business models should be the purpose of our laws.
As for DRM -- I don't like it, I don't want it to exist, but I think people should be free to create it and build it into devices that they make and sell. Similarly, I should be free to reverse engineer it, hack it, do whatever I want with my products in my home, and share everything I know with others. No information lockdown.
But instead we have this awkward copyright thing that limits our freedoms all over the place. So I'll abuse it with the GPL to help cultivate an ecosystem of works that protect freedoms, until we abolish copyright, and then we're in a different world altogether.
Edit: Perhaps it was unfair when I wrote that without copyright, the GPL would not be necessary to protect those freedoms. I acknowledge that there are freedoms that the GPL assures to the recipients of a work that would not be automatically available without copyright for the work. However the whole system would be so different that I would no longer consider it necessary for something like the GPL to exist.
Let's acknowledge however that it's reeeally hard to predict how things would evolve without copyright. I surely want it abolished and I surely wouldn't outright abolish it overnight! Slow ramp-up process.
I think you and the poster above you likely have very different definitions of freedom. Supporting copyright is taking the stance that a reduction of freedom (to reproduce info) is worth it, in exchange for an economic incentive to invent. The world ends up with better stuff, and the inventors are rewarded.
(That is the argument anyway.)
Those who wish to abolish copyright usually either (1) think the economic argument is flawed or (2) believe that the freedom is simply more important than the economic gains. Or some blend/combo of those 2 arguments.
So I'm curious what you mean that it actually leads to less freedom.
The reason they use GPL for their license, instead of something much simpler such as a BSD style license or MIT style license, is that they want to ensure that anyone who obtains their software will be able to do all of the things listed above.
As the poster above me put it:
For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically
to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits
the freedoms of others.
He doesn't want me to be able to do any of that that, and so he uses GPLv3, which is only effective because of copyright. If copyright were eliminated, "Free Software" of the kind the FSF strives for is not possible.
If we're assuming legislative power (to abolish copyright), there's no reason we couldn't pass laws to achieve the same goals without copyright.
Otherwise, its still a copyright law. It's just more limited than current copyright law in that it might only cover software, and provide drastically fewer options for the author.
The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility
Fair enough, but the discussion happens in the context of abolishing copyright, something that exists in (almost?) every single country in the world, and which is consecrated in many constitutions, include the US'.
That's what the page says, and which is why he had to write that FAQ explicitly granting those rights (which defeats the whole point, in my humble opinion).
He also talks about his philosophy about what people care about in software.
This was before youtube. Somebody should upload it to youtube... (sorry, I can't right now, due to limited bandwidth).
(I know DJB, since we had the same thesis adviser in graduate school....)
https://lwn.net/Articles/260481/
Further explained at http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html which IIRC has been linked many times here.