Conversation
Notices
-
The decline of GPL?
https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl-
@dolus everyone realized how restrictive gpl is and how batpapaya insane rms is so they switched to a more logical license
-
@why logical for what use case? There are projects better suited to lax licenses, but there are others that are too important for user freedom, to allow proprietary forks.
-
@dolus if someone makes a proprietary fork, that's the guy making the fork's problem. on a long enough time scale, every proprietary project will become defunct, and every libre project will eclipse the proprietary one.
-
@why Unless the proprietary fork excels the lax free one. I could see this happening with LLVM/Clang. It really would not be much different than "open core" models.
-
@dolus the proprietary fork excels the lax free one only temporarily. there was a time when microsoft office was more useful than open/libreoffice but look where we are now
-
@why Other than the word processor, LibreOffice still needs a bit of work; that's where we are on that... I could very easily see companies treating a lax licensed project like open-core. Their version is the "delux" one, so why would you want to use the free one?
-
@dolus i can understand the concern, but i don't think they're allowed to prohibit features in the proprietary version to be implemented in the libre one. sure, it'll take more time to get up to speed, but the free software community is defined by patience (we've been waiting for HURD for how many years now?)
-
@why
Nobodies still waiting on the HURD... It's not a great idea to give companies that much power in the long-run.-
@dolus this looks like an agree to disagree argument. i prefer the ability to just do what you want with the code that's made free, putting arbitrary restrictions on how you use it just doesn't seem to mesh with that
-
@why
>the GPL
>arbitrary
You can say a lot of things about the GPL, but it's not written the way it is for arbitrary reasons. It's designed to preserve freedom, and it's written in a logical way to do just that. -
@why @dolus a non-copyleft license like MIT basically gives people the "freedom" to take away others' freedom by making proprietary changes. Disallowing that is not arbitrary.
-
-
@dtluna @hector @why Even RMS does not advocate for zero copyright (and neither do I for that matter). Copyright has it's proper role, but the current duration breaks they system. There is nothing wrong with having control over your work for a limited amount of time. And in the case for the GPL, it does some good.
-
-
@dtluna @hector @why Giving people a certain degree of protections over an idea for a very limited amount of time for their ideas can encourage creativity and innovation. It's just the excessive duration and laws that favor large companies that are harmful.
-
-
-
@dolus @why @hector Copyright is a government-enforeced thing, my dude. It's a ban of certain activities, for example: claiming the work as your own.
-
@dtluna @hector @why Remember, I'm a small government guy, not a no government one. I see nothing wrong with giving, say, a song writer a ten year duration where they are the only one who can commercially profit from their work. It's when we get to 175 years of protection and you cant even sing the song at parties, that I think there is a serious problem.
-
-
-
@dolus @why @dtluna nobody should do it because it's unethical. Culture flourished in the absence of copyright laws for millennia. It only produces a net negative effect on society.
-
@hector @why @dtluna Things were fine in the stated with the duration we originally had in the constitution.
-
@dolus @why @dtluna there is no such "original duration" in the Constitution, it just says "for limited Times".
-
@hector @why @dtluna The original duration was around 24 years, if I'm not mistaken. And while the exact length of time isn't actually in the constitution there was a set number.
-
@dolus @why @hector @dtluna
Just hopping into this here. I see nothing with a 5 year copyright for cultural works. It gives artists an incentive to create more, while giving it to the public to create more sooner.
You've all seen me post this a million times: https://cherryposter.club/url/474006
But copyright is complicated. -
-
-
-
-
@dtluna @dolus @why @hector
Sure it is. I don't want other people being able to claim my work as their own, and making a profit from doing so. To be viewed the author when they aren't. On saying that, it's okay if they want to use the same ideas contained in it. If I created songs, then I don't mind people singing them for non-profit reasons or at birthdays... but it becomes a problem when they start claiming it as their own. Who wants other people taking the credit for what is their own hard work?-
@sim @dolus @why @dtluna there is a big difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. Claiming work that isn't your own is plagiarism, which is a very small subset of the possible acts that can constitute copyright infringement.
-
@hector @why @dtluna @sim Say I wrote a book, if it fair that other people could make money off of it as soon as I put it out? I think a short period of time where I alone can make commercial profit off of it is fair.
-
@dolus @why @dtluna @sim the fundamental assumption you seem to be making here is that "I made it, therefore I have the right to profit from it." In my view, there is no such thing as a right to profit. It is wrong if someone steals something from you, but copying is not stealing. With stealing, the original possessor no longer has the object. With copying, we both have the object. There is nothing wrong with copying information and sharing it with people.
-
@hector @why @dtluna @sim I didn't say anything about it being "stealing". I believe it is optimal for the arts and science for there to be a limited duration of protections of ideas and methods. Limited protections DO encourage more works, which makes them a fair and worthwhile trade.
-
@dolus @why @dtluna @sim if you want there to be legal punishment against people redistributing your work, then you are indeed defining it as stealing. If it is "protected" against copying, then violating that protection is stealing.
-
-
-
@dolus @dtluna @why @hector
I agree. Although I think I would extend it. Why should anyone else get to plagiarise and profit from my work without my permission? What if there is an early leak, and someone else decides to plagiarise it... and now you could be in trouble if you try to sell it. Because it will be under their name first. All that hard work... and for what? So someone else can claim it as their own? Do people want me to be extra secretive of my works here?-
-
@dtluna @dolus @why @hector
Yeah, the same way that a business owner is "authoritarian" about his business and products/services through it. Not just anyone can claim to be him, and sell you products as his business. That sounds like a PR nightmare too.-
@sim
Equating information and physical objects and services is very intellectually dishonest.
You *DO NOT* have a right to receive income or profit from your actions exclusively. -
@sim
Equating information and physical objects and services is very intellectually dishonest.
You *DO NOT* have a right to guaranteed income or profit from your actions.-
@dtluna
So, my book that I'm the author of is not a product I have any ownership over that I am trading with others? What makes you think that you have the rights to my book again?
It seems going digital with stories muddies the waters with people here too, they no longer see it as a physical object like a book would be viewed as. All because we work in print. It's just "information" rather than a creative story.-
-
@dtluna
Tell me, why is my story just information to you? That it doesn't deserve the same protections afforded to ownership of other products? That you can do whatever the Potato Knishes you want with it because it is just text to you? I get zero say on the matter even though I am the author.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@sim @hector @why @dtluna Is satire and remix plagiarism? Surely you borrowed from older works even if only to a small degree in creating your own works. A short and sweet duration of copy right is optimal. Stretch it out more than 25 years or so, and things get broken.
-
@dolus @dtluna @why @hector
I think satire/remix are okay, because you end up putting your own spin on it. I'm not saying I have the right to the storyline ideas themselves, but to the overall product. I would welcome other authors creating their own worlds and characters, and then being inspired by storyline ideas from my works... putting their own spin on it. That is writing, and it is partly what I do although I think I take more inspiration from what is said to have really happened. I am also fine with fanfiction that is non-profit. But I think I should get to decide what happens to the product that I worked hard on. Writing books can often be a lengthy process.-
@sim @dolus @why @hector
>But I think I should get to decide what happens to the product that I worked hard on. Writing books can often be a lengthy process.
So basically you're saying you should be able to use violence against somebody just because you've written the book?-
@dtluna @dolus @why @hector
You don't think that plagiarising my story is a violation of my rights? I am reacting here, and I wouldn't want them to be violently hurt for it. But it's still not okay to do this, morally. Why can't people come and talk to me first?-
@sim @dolus @why @dtluna plagiarism is unethical, I already said that. That is no justification for copyright law.
-
-
@sim What rights? "Intellectual property" rights? There is no such thing as "intellectual property", it's a scam.
-
@dtluna I'm not really sure what it would fall under, but I still created the story. Which makes it my story. I am not scamming anyone. It is my property. But then maybe I also want to produce other copies to sell, like reproducing things like chairs. People are free to create their own stories, like they can create their own chairs. Just not my story without my permission. People are free to use the ideas or techniques used within my story, to write their story and put their own spin on it. But it's not right to take my full story... even worse to claim it as yours and make a profit from it. Unfortunately, stories in books are also much easier to copy because it is all written out for you to copy from. There are no secrets there. Imitation can be perfect since it is purely copying what is there. There is no room for simple imitation. Regardless, I just don't think it is right to plagiarise and profit from something that isn't yours. Selling…
-
-
-
-
-
-
@sim @hector @dolus @dtluna you're thinking about it the wrong way. isn't the purpose of invention and art to spread your own ideas? why, then, is someone else spreading your ideas a bad thing? those who do it purely for the money or the reputation are the only ones that care about this. ISHYGDDT [costanza with baseball bat dot jay peg]
-
@why @hector @dtluna @sim Long-term it's not a bad thing. But why would artists make as many works if there were less incentive to do so?
-
@dolus @hector @dtluna @sim the incentive is your own incentive to spread ideas. i write articles for robek.world and post my grapety opinions on the internet because i want others to hear my voice. what is art but ideas and opinions posed in a digestible manner? what is invention but useful art?
-
@why @dtluna @dolus @hector
Oh, I've written for free plenty of times. I even put my poems up here for free. But it doesn't make me any money... I just get to feel good when people understand the message. Which, for longer term projects isn't as incentivising, assuming that you are even free to pursue it. As I said, money helps to free people up more to pursue these works of art, and they can use that to buy what they need and to improve their lives. People in the renaissance had patrons, this enabled artists to be at their best. To really share ideas with each other, and about the art works. It fostered a great environment for them, and attracted some of the best in those fields.-
-
@why @dtluna @dolus @hector
Sure... although it is down to the individual what purpose their art has. But if you want to do this full-term rather than as a hobby, then things begin to change. Nobody makes a living from other people understanding their message because it's not a currency that we recognise, it doesn't lead to being able to buy everything necessary to continue making art... unless that person becomes their patron.
-
-
-
-
-
@why @dtluna @dolus @hector
Well, I want to try and be accommodating here. At some point, I would like to be able to make money off my works, so that I can improve my life and that of my family too. If you can't make a profit from it, then it becomes just a hobby instead. Which means that it gets less time when you are concerned with making a living. It can't be your main focus unless you make money from it, or have someone else funding/patroning you so you are free to pursue it. Just the way the world works.
If we want artists to be free to create works, then we need to be willing to fund them when we can. It's not bad to spread my ideas, but it is bad to plagiarise and profit from it without my permission. Although if you buy the book, and then sell or let someone borrow it... that is okay. As I said I want to be as accommodating as possible, but still have the rights over my product.-
@sim @dolus @dtluna @hector @why
> i need government protection for my business model to work
that's extortion fam.
using force to establish a market means that it doesn't actually exist.-
@xj9 @dolus @why @hector @dtluna
I'm not sure where you got this from what I said. Property exists, but we still have that protected by the law. Because there are people who would steal property.
I don't think that I'm being fully understood here right now, and it seems like I'm the bad guy for wanting to protect my property which is my story. For wanting to offer a product on the market, but not for other people to claim it as their own and profit from it without my permission. To have authorship over the product that I produce by my own labour. I'm being told that I have no ownership of it, and people are allowed to do whatever they want there because it's just information or because someone only copied it all out... you still have your story! It's not a product, because it's not physical enough to count as one.-
@sim @dolus @why @dtluna @xj9 first you say it's your product, and then you say it's not a product. Can you at least choose one or the other so we can understand what you're saying?
-
@hector @dtluna @xj9 @dolus @why
When I put it on the market, it is the product that I am selling on the market to other people. If you mean the last part, I was just venting what I was hearing from you guys. Apparently a story isn't enough of a physical product to count as one. That is the impression that I got.-
@sim @dolus @why @dtluna @xj9 let me attempt to explain as clearly as possible my point of view, Sim. When someone creates a work, it is never 100% original. The ideas therein build upon the audience's cultural knowledge and draw upon a legacy of other works that can go back for millennia. In that sense, it is part of the cultural heritage of humanity. Yes, the author is given primary recognition for their work in combining and distilling the ideas into a concrete and unified whole, but it is not entirely a product of their own imagination. If it was, no one besides themselves would be able to understand it. Ideas were the original digital files. If I have an idea, and I tell it to someone else, now two people have the idea. It has been copied from my mind to another. No one is harmed by copying because nothing is lost, only gained. The underlying justification for copyright laws, namely intellectual property, asserts that people have ownership…
-
@hector @dtluna @xj9 @dolus @why
I think I would agree to limiting copyright law as it stands now. But as an artist, I would still want ownership and protections for the actual work that I do. I would not want someone else to claim what I put together as their own, and then distribute it however they want. But I am all about sharing ideas, and other artists using ideas and putting their own spin on it. Techniques and ideas should be shared... particularly if you care about bettering the craft and helping others do so.-
@si @hector
> But as an artist, I would still want ownership and protections for the actual work that I do.
There cannot be any ownership of information. Any attempts to make it a thing promote coercion and force.
> I would not want someone else to claim what I put together as their own, and then distribute it however they want.
There are ways to prevent people from doing that without coercion such as protesting the plagiators, harming their reputation and so on.-
@dtluna @hector
Yeah... I can totally protest and harm their reputation when they have more reach and power than me. How many people do you think would believe what I say as a small individual? Especially if I am facing bigger corporations or well-known people that have a bigger fanbase? If Disney decided to take my story, and distribute it as their own which they are legally permitted to do now... who would boycott them? Good luck me. I would have to hand all my work over... since I have no rights or ownership according to you. I couldn't take them to court, and ask for them to cease or pay me compensation. It's not even a violation, according to you. I'm the evil one for wanting to use the court to settle this dispute.
-
-
@sim I've always been of that train of thought. If you make something, it makes sense to have ownership over the character/world/whatever, but also it makes no sense to completely forbid anyone from using them in the future. Complete ownership for a few years and then allowing derivative works. As the original author you can still freely decide what's canon and what isn't, which is enough control, and you can denounce someone who's misusing your work (say, to promote a political ideology opposite of your own) and have them stop, but in general allow others to make stories based on it with proper recognition of the original work at the same time boosting your own audience through them.
The exception I'd put on derivative works would be in the form of still having to license commercial movies or games, as these imply huge amounts of money and can have a lasting impact in the perception of your franchise.Sunday, 19-Feb-17 20:04:32 UTC from web-
@nerthos @sim To me fan fiction is awesome. Disney adapting a work, and maintaining their copywrite hold on what's really the author's property...really really really not cool in any way.
-
@nerthos @sim I'm worried about how Disney is going to handle the copywrite status of Star Wars. Disney is a cooperation, and by nature shouldn't be entitled to the same copywrite or copyleft rights an individual should have that created the work. That's probably the biggest thing I fear as an author--a cooperation having perpetual ownership after I'm gone. I want endless fan fiction forever.
-
-
@nerthos
I think I can back this. I'm all for encouraging the fanbase to get involved, and for people to write derivative works. The bonus is that it is good marketing for me. But again, I would want ownership over it for as long as I lived... then it would depend. I might decide to make it public domain, or perhaps pass it to my children to better their lives... keep it in the family. But as you say, I wouldn't want a big company to have ownership over it, to commercialise it.-
@sim Well, it's reasonable that you have the right to make it public domain if you want. I'd prefer keep that degree of control though, even if not usually enforced, to say what's canon and what isn't. It wouldn't stop others from writing stuff based on it but it would stop someone from screwing up the continuity by writing terrible fanfiction.
Sunday, 19-Feb-17 21:03:21 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Yeah... while I live, I would want that control over it. Then when I am gone, either keep it in the family so that it can benefit them... or perhaps put it to the public domain or a charity. When you have passed on, there isn't a whole lot you can do about what is canon and what isn't. Either way, the key thing is that you get to determine that as the author of the work.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@xj9 @dolus @why @hector @dtluna @sim
> people keep robbing your store so you have to close
> the police comes to help you but that's extortion
You have a point, but it's not that simple.-
@lambadalambda @hector @dolus @why @dtluna @sim @xj9 >involving the police
>not hiring the mafia to break the thieves kneecaps-
@dokidoki @lambadalambda @dtluna @xj9 @dolus @why @hector
Haha. Yeah... I'm not sure how I would solve this. In the example above, it would be viewed as self-defence, and a violation of property rights... but make it a book that is text on a page? Suddenly no rights have been violated, because you don't have rights for the work that you make.-
@sim @hector @dolus @why @lambadalambda @dtluna @xj9 Three to five years ownership over IP or no copyright at all would be best IMFO. Derivative works should recieve no coverage. I say that as being one who works in theatre the publisher mafia pulls some bananaed mango. They will change one thing ever so slightly in one of Shakespeares plays, something that is not under copyright at this point, and then have copyright over the play format. If you forsay get a copy of the script online for Shakespeares original play, something that has never been under copyright, and brook that to perform then when the publishing company finds out, there is no if, they will still shut down your play and take all of your profits. EVEN IF THE PLAY WAS NEVER UNDER COPYRIGHT IN IT'S ENTIRE FrankerZING HISTORY. Those are my thoughts.
-
@dokidoki
But if it is my own overall story... why should other people decide how long I copyright it for? Shouldn't I have that control? Although it is a concern that people can abuse the concept. With derivative works, I don't think they should be able to do that with Shakespeare's play or any... I was thinking more like spinoffs than just slightly altering the original work.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@hector @dtluna @dolus @why
I thought that plagiarism is what copyright was about mostly. Why most people would look to protect their works.-
-
@dtluna @hector @why @sim No. The Statute of Anne was originally meant to encourage more works for the arts and science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne-
@dolus @why @dtluna @sim Ctrl-F "censorship" on that article -> you just fatally undermined your own argument.
-
@hector @why @dtluna @sim It seems you don't even really know what I'm arguing for. Also posting an article does not mean I agree with it's contents. https://gs.smuglo.li/attachment/118271
-
@dolus @why @dtluna @sim you don't have to "agree" with it for it to contradict what you just said, as it is factual information and not opinion that the Statute of Anne and the first implementation of copyright was for the purpose of censoring works that might undermine the state's religious doctrine.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@why Also, as flawed a person as RMS might be, it's not an argument against his valid points about the dangers of lax licenses replacing copyleft ones.
-
-
Decline of the GPL ? Possible, but it will eventually revert. Why ? Because companies just use permissive license because they don't want to loose their monopoly and the handful of users who will demand source so that they can be free. The increases of MIT is like said partly due to companies. For example Microsoft contributing to openbsd or the linux kernel for their Azure solutions. But it's also due about misconceptions of the GPL. Most people haven't read the licenses or don't understand them. If a company spread the word to their developer that the GPL isn't a good businesses model because it focus on "purity and batcave" of course permissive license won't be appreciated. Permissive licensing will bring problems and already has, android being the most famous one. Developers are users too, that's something that we often forget because we know how to compute. If the restrictions that permissive license brings with them began to influence develope…
-
@dolus Not so much decline as growth. OSS is spreading into other areas, and libraries and languages are a large part of that: to promote Ogg, a more BSD-like license lets manufacturers adapt the software to their own needs.
-
@somercet I just wish more people would consider something like the LGPL instead of just slapping MIT on a project just because it's what everyone else is doing.
-
-
