Notices by the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com), page 2
-
Embed this notice
the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:14 JST 
the_daikon_warfare
@lispi314 @Suiseiseki @vulonkaaz
People I know who have an overall objection to copyright tend to prefer public domain over copyleft. That is fine and free, but is a different philosophy to what is implied by "free software". I have no issue with copyright when it is used to uphold one's right to copy things he comes into possession of, or preserve the authors within a derivative work.
When morality is applied to copyright of things other than software, they often become different, though similar issues with their own nuances. For instance when you acquire and modify software that is free, you're under no obligation to share it with anyone. However, I also believe that free publication of all research should be a component of legal conduct for public scientific and academic institutions, and I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to operate while marketing proprietary research. -
Embed this notice
the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:12 JST
the_daikon_warfare
@lispi314 @Suiseiseki @vulonkaaz
> Too many broken countries don't have such a thing, and the alternatives don't focus enough on the importance of the Four Freedoms.
The CC0 license was designed to grant nearest public domain equivalence in jurisdictions that don't have an analogous concept. With public domain the Four Freedoms are neither here nor there with regards to derivative works.
> Some creative commons licenses are even non-Free.
Indeed some of them are, and I generally don't approve of them. However "public domain" is not, which is why I said that instead. As I understand it the set of Creative Commons licenses were made to cover a large area of issues, and were not intended primarily for software.
> "Copyright" is generally a misnomer
I know. That is why I have no issue when "copyright" is used to legally grant someone his real "copy-right". -
Embed this notice
the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 04:55:13 JST
the_daikon_warfare
@Suiseiseki
> Unfortunately, even during the time when copyrights or patents didn't apply to software, many businesses refused to publish the source code, claiming such was their "trade secret"
I don't think trade secret laws covered software before that point, either, and businesses who would have otherwise delivered the source code with their products suddenly found it in their interest to stop (ex. when Xerox refused to give the AI Lab the driver code for their new printer).
I think "trade secret" laws are of the relevant few laws (along with patents) that ought to be entirely abolished rather than reformed. If a business has what they consider to be their "trade secret" leaked out, then it's their fault and they should have no legal recourse to compensate for their mistake. I think this would eventually drive home the idea that keeping secrets from valuable clients is ultimately futile and hinders successful business.
> Currently, freedom-defending licenses take a crucial role in defending the freedom of the software.
I agree.
> I believe the quake source code was only released like 10-20 years after the main release, but that's a lot better than most.
The source to the original Quake was released under GPLv2 in 1999, 3 years after the game came out. IIRC it was one of the first commercial games to be ported to GNU/Linux. They seemed to follow a policy of releasing their code a few years after they were done with it, as they did for the engines for Quake 2, 3, and Doom 3/Quake 4, but they haven't followed up on this for a long time, unfortunately. I think it's a good example for game developers to follow, though it is preferable to just make the engines free in the first place (which some nowadays do). -
Embed this notice
the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 03:58:24 JST
the_daikon_warfare
@vulonkaaz It's like the saying about how a lock only keeps an honest man honest: if software wasn't copyrightable/patentable (as it was for a period of time) then free software licenses wouldn't need to exist.
The issue of copyright on software versus other forms of media, I think are mostly separate for this reason, since they emphasize freedom of use/reuse versus freedom of copying/sharing.
Video games are also a grey area, since they both consist of software and media. I think it's a great thing when, for example game developers follow the example of Quake and release the code for their games freely. -
Embed this notice
the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Sep-2024 23:59:09 JST
the_daikon_warfare
@Suiseiseki @monsieuricon This but with emacs
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the