Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Mark Hughes (markhughes@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 06:48:04 JST Mark Hughes

   @mgorny I made this choice a while back for similar reasons, but now am also considering the anti-capitalist software license.

   What do you think about that?

   https://anticapitalist.software/

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 06:48:02 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     it doesn't do what it purports to do. someone tried to model it after copyleft without understanding how copyleft works. you don't need permission from copyright holders to run a program
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 07:24:58 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     IANAL indeed
     software licensing is *not* about permission to run software. copyright licensing is about adapting, distributing, publishing, and performing publicly. execution is not one of the rights reserved to copyright holders. that's the reason why the software industry has resorted to contract-forming tricks such as shrink-wrap licenses, click-through agreements during installation, and end-user agreements, all the while misleading people into believing those contracts are copyright licenses.
   • Embed this notice
     Mark Hughes (markhughes@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 07:25:00 JST Mark Hughes

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo
     I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.

     I'm not either but I know that software licensing is very much about permission to use / run the code. That's why people buy licenses even if they have a copy of the code. Having source code and being able to compile it doesn't change that.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 07:41:18 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     that's correct, as long as law was not broken in making the copy and getting it to you. running software is like reading books, seeing paintings and sculptures, listening to music, watching movies. you don't need a license to enjoy a copyrighted work. copyright regulates the making of copies, not their enjoyment.
   • Embed this notice
     Mark Hughes (markhughes@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 07:41:19 JST Mark Hughes

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo
     Ok, let me pose a question.

     Are you saying that holding a copy of object code means you are permitted to use it without paying the copyright holder?

   • Embed this notice
     Mark Hughes (markhughes@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jan-2024 00:03:27 JST Mark Hughes

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo well I've been writing, selling, reselling and working for others doing so since about 1980, and if you were correct none of that would have been a viable business.

     The hole in your argument is, "if it was legally obtained" and the point of software licenses is to both restrict the distribution and allowed use of those distributed copies.

     If you breach the the terms you have not obtained the copy under the applicable law.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jan-2024 00:03:27 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     these businesses like to frame themselves as related with copyrights, because that indeed gains them legitimacy, but it doesn't follow that every one of the restrictions they attempt to impose stem from copyrights.
     the point of licenses is to grant permissions, not to restrict. copyright licenses, specifically, may lift the limits introduced by copyright law, or leave them in place, but they cannot take rights away. that's why proprietary software (who want to take rights away) have resorted to licensing agreements rather than licenses. that's a mind trick for people to believe that there's some relationship with copyrights, but the restrictions they impose are ones that are not imposed by copyright law, and that thus couldn't be imposed by a copyright license. likewise, DRM packages copyrighted (or public domain) artworks behind a wall of technical measures that enable packagers to write their own law, entirely detached from copyrights, and going far beyond limits that copyright places on non-holders. but they frame it all as a matter of copyright, and people fall for it, and believe they're buying a license (permission to do something that, by law, is reserved exclusively for someone else), but the so-called license doesn't really license anything, the whole point of forming a contract is to get you to accept restrictions that are not set forth in copyright law.