Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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

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.

I'm willing to make the trade-off.

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.

> If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist

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.

I'm not talking about economics at all. The poster above me is talking about "freedom" in the same sense the FSF does--the freedom of the users of a program to (1) run it as they wish, for any purpose, (2) to study how it works, and change it to work as they wish, (3) to redistribute it as they wish, and (4) to redistribute any modified versions they make.

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.

If I were to take a copy of his software, modify it, build a binary from the modified copy, and use that in my proprietary product without making the modified source available to the users of my product, he would believe that I have limited the freedom of the users of my product. If I were to use a code signing scheme in the firmware of my product to block software updates that are not signed by me, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my users. If I make my users sign a legally binding agreement to not reverse engineer the code before I allow them to buy the product, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my users.

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.

It's true that the GPL currently uses copyright law to achieve its goals; but it's not true that copyright is the only possible way of achieving them.

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.

If the new law actually makes it illegal to provide software or use software in an embedded system without including source, and makes it illegal to use signing or other technical means to stop the user of a device that contains software from replacing that software, and makes any contract term that tries to place conditions on someone redistributing software they have received from others, then yes, we could achieve GPL 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

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'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com