It’s a bit silly when people are against IP full-stop, without considering copyleft for example. If you’re against the idea of IP and don’t protect your software, your work will just get stolen by some big corp (TM) and you’ll lose everything. Specific licenses and smart open-sourcing will at least allow you to protect yourself against these scenarios as much as possible, otherwise you’re just aiding the entities with the most power
@lain In principle, I’m completely against IP existing, but as long as big corps and some other entities take someone’s work and profit off it (e.g incorporate a substantial piece of work without a good license into proprietary software, or downright just take the whole product and shut down the creator), we need to protect ourselves against this. At least with copyleft, it might actually work against this whole practice.
@lain@kinoko I think the main issue isnt actually IP, its the ability to use the protections, which is only really useful for larger companies since they can just outspend you.
the whole 'loser pays for the winners costs' should be enough to compensate for this, but people dont want to take the risk. otherwise i think its fine
when people think of IP, they typically think of digital assets. but do you think about privacy or reputation? both are a property rights claim over the content of another person's mind.
@toiletpaper@kinoko I'm not saying that there isn't a good reason to sanction this kind of behavior in a community, I'm just saying that it's not a property issue.
I've been mulling this over for quite a while and though I don't relish it, I think there's a good reason our ancestors (vikings, celts, greeks, romans, etc) considered it legal to kill someone on the spot if they talked shit about you in public.