@Suiseiseki

> Copyright was a thing long before someone imagined up such proprietary brain damage term.

For the same reason the phrase "freedom of expression" was created to encompass freedom of speech, of the press, etc., and the various new media that came into being, a term "intellectual property" was coined to encompass copyrights, patents, etc. You can argue that it's a bad term, but "copyright" is a bad term: anyone has the right to copy something, as there is no victim when a piece of information is copied and there are plenty of benefactors.

> Even people in the "WIPO" has realized that many people don't buy their name and has recommended that the name has been changed.

It's just the international version of the BSA; I don't care what they're called, I would like them to stop.

> Copyright is in the purview of each countries governments

:ancapchanlol:

> At the time I believe anyone could copy books in Britain by hand and it was a matter that restricted printing presses only.

The British threatened trade sanctions against the US, as books that were covered by local copyright were taken to the US and then copied and reprinted. I think books ought to be copied. Here, here's a copy of a book. My copy is transferred to the server, where it is copied, and you can save it and create a copy and have your own copy. This book, which everyone loved, and which was used in offices and classrooms, was killed by AT&T because it violated their copyright on the Unix source code. So people started using Xerox machines to copy it and pass it around. And I am directing some machines to make a copy and you can make a copy of it. Anyone can make a copy of it.

> If you reject imaginary property as the false concept that it is, that does not mean you could have possibly rejected an actual law that actually exists.

You have said something absurd.

Rejecting a concept as valid does not mean the same thing as rejecting the existence of a body of law. I reject the concept but I know the laws still exist; this is no different from software patents. I reject the concept: software patents are not reasonable. You agree with me on that concept, unless I'm mistaken. However, the laws protecting them do still exist.

> There is no choice whether to accept the concept of copyright or not,

Then I have done the impossible--before breakfast, even!

> if you make a copy, you need to follow the license whether or not you accept it.

I am a pirate.

> The FSF has very carefully set up a voting scheme that ensures that it is impossible to corrupt

There exists no voting scheme that can do this, but let's say I'll play: it is possible for the FSF to amend its bylaws and thus introduce a scheme that allows corruption. The members of the board are only humans and humans are replaced with other humans and ultimately the board can do what it wants. You also cannot discount a black swan: Sulla can march on Rome.

You cannot say that the future is certain. If you can show me the text of all future versions of the AGPL, then I can make a decision. If you cannot, then you must make an argument based on trust. If I do not have to rely on trust, then I will not. Especially the FSF, which has, in my view, been compromised since the first attempt to remove rms.

> only the Free Software Foundation may publish revised versions and such versions need to be similar in spirit to be valid.

What guarantee do I have of this besides trust?

I do not need trust to say "This is the license." I can read the words on the page. I cannot read future versions of it.

> He cannot - nobody will vote that freedom hater in.

Jim Salter appears to be on their side: https://fosstodon.org/@jimsalter/113330555018293763 .

> the FSF license bugfix process is public.

Would you commit to eating something and all later versions of it, as decided by a committee that you have no control of? If I say I'll eat a burger, that's fine: I know what I am eating. If some day the committee decides that ketchup must be added, I hate ketchup, I'll be upset.

> If you have misplaced doubt

I have nothing but doubt, but as licenses exist only to provide limited grants of (legal) rights organizations that fear the law. It is a ward, a sigil, it repels people that would exploit the software, which represents my work, and provides some peace to people that are concerned about the law but wish to use the software.

I am giving proper weight to licensing: "I'll agree to this and will not agree to write a blank check" and until there is new information, that's the decision. In order for this decision to cause me problems in the future, the code would have to be important enough, and it would also have to have enough contributors that there would be difficulty getting them to agree to relicense. Now, I have no control over the FSF, but I do decide whose patches I merge and whose I do not. I am not obligated to trust the FSF, but I must trust people whose patches are merged.

Because Linux was delegated to a foundation, so that businesses could be comfortable using Linux, Linux acquired the ability to be coopted, taken from its creator. Because GNU projects typically (though not necessarily) assign copyright to the FSF, the FSF can take things away. You can seize control of a foundation. I do not trust a foundation: I trust individual people that I know, I trust machines, I trust that if there are words on a page that those words do not move.
lion-s_commentary_on_unix.pdf