Slashdot Log In
You Can't Oppose Copyright and Support Open Source
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun May 06, 2007 06:13 PM
from the baby-with-the-bathwater dept.
from the baby-with-the-bathwater dept.
Reader gbulmash sends us to his essay on the fallacy of those who would abolish copyright. The argument is that without copyright granting an author the right to set licensing terms for his/her work, the GPL could not be enforced. The essay concludes that if you support the GPL or any open source license (other than public domain), your fight should be not about how to abolish copyright, but how to reform copyright.
Related Stories
[+]
You Can Oppose Copyright and Support Open Source 378 comments
kfogel writes "I'm submitting 'Supporting Open Source While Opposing Copyright' as a response to Greg Bulmash's piece from yesterday. I think there were a number of flaws and mistaken assumptions in Bulmash's reasoning, and I've tried to address them in this rebuttal, which has undergone review from some colleagues in the copyright-reform community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In a world without copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
Summa summarum, I think it's better to live in a world with copyright in place.
I just - like many other fellow advocates of Free Software - would wish for more people to publish their works under more permissive and freedom-granting licenses: to have art, culture, knowledge and wisdom spread for the greater good, and not just immediate, monetary profit in the first place.
Bottom line is: supporting Free Software and/or the GNU GPL does not automagically make you speak out against copyright per se at all.
Re:In a world without copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Even more? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you can be more protective of source code than they are today.
Parent
Copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright simply screws everybody who didn't think of it first. It's nothing but a holdover from 19th century industrialists who wish to control everything.
Noooo, sorry, we were looking for patent. PATENTS let you screw over everyone who didn't think of it first. (For 20 years, at least - then everyone gets to use the technology you described publicly and in great detail on your patent application.)
Copyrights are necessary and important, moreso for the layman than the Evil Corporation(TM). The classical example is "You write a song and someone performed it and makes millions off of your work." Copyrights are what make that illegal, and what make the GPL and other "copyleft" schemes possible.
You might be tempted to say that without coypyright, the GPL wouldn't be necessary - everyone could use everything because there'd be no licenses of any kind to stop you. Let me knock down a straw-man for a minute and point out that the GPL and other F/OSS licenses do more than allow public-domain-style copying. The GPL, for example, requries someone who uses GPL-licensed code to release his code under the GPL, also.
Copyright laws require $big-evil-19th-century-industrialist-man to release the source code of his $program if his program uses GPL'd code. Without copyrights, he is free to take F/OSS and use them in his own $program, without giving the source code back to the community.
It's why we still burn petroleum and use lame, kludgy x86 processors while better existing technology rots on the shelf waiting for a higher price
Did somebody "copyright" (or are you still talking about "patents"?) the dark matter reactor, or the Magic Battery, or something? We use petroleum because it's a cheap (yes, it's still cheap relative to other fuels), efficient, and easily obtained fuel.
We use 8086 clones because of the insane amount of software produced for that architecture. An insane amount of software was produced for that architecture because Microsoft licensed their OS to Tandy and the like (something Apple wouldn't do), which brought cheap computing to the masses.
Better technology doesn't "wait for a higher price." If it's not worth buying, it's obviously that hot. Consumers wait for lower prices as technology improves.
Yes, I'm sure there are "better" processor architectures out there - and they're being used where the differences are actually worth the cost. Servers use all sorts of interesting procs and arrangements, where a faster server is worth dealing with the idiosyncrasies and higher costs of a more exotic chip. But, I'm sorry to say that your $359 Dell machine is not going to see a I've written machine language for x86, Z80, and 68K derivatives, and the x86 isn't all that bad - and with compilers and programming languages, how kludgey the underlying architecture is doesn't matter as long as it runs efficiently enough. Our Intel and AMD chips run fast enough, and they're cheap. The DEC Alpha was expensive, had complicated instruction set [alphalinux.org], and provided no advantages over the x86 for programmers or desktop users - so it's used on many-CPU servers and processor farms.
You managed to post to slashdot despite using an x86 machine, didn't you? I'm happy you suffered through the ordeal. The DEC Alpha "rotting on the shelf" will not help you one bit unless you start writing and posting a billion posts every second. The Itanium-series chips succeeded in the marketplace because they play nice with existing software, are cheaper, and provide the same benefits.
I'd love to see some specific examples of "better existing technology rotting on the shelf" due to patents or "19th century industrials" or whatnot.
(Score:0, Flamebait) There ya go! Send in the drones [stlyrics.com]... to fight for what they think is theirs...even when it's not. Stamp out the rabble rouser and his
Parent
Re:In a world without copyright... (Score:4, Interesting)
*didn't help Curtiss though.
**In every instance I can find IP law has always slowed developement of virtually everything until it copyright/patent expired.
***which covers copyrights AND patents, so patents are not irrelevant. They are every bit as much a part of the picture as copyright.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the guy who wrote the article is totally and completely batshiat crazy; he assumes that using the system to produce results closest to those that one desires automatically means one doesn't desire a lack of the system.
I disagree. If a lack of copyright is what you desire for your creations that already exists now within the current system. You simply put them into the public domain. The fact that this isn't what people want to do means that they do, as the author suggests, want to retain some control over their creation and so use the GLP or Creative Commons or some similar system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is silly. Copyrights are not necessary. All you need is respect for contracts. Example: a programmer writes code. Then he gives the code to his friend after asking his friend to contract that he will agree to release all his modifications to the source code (or whatever) and that the friend will require anyone he gives the code to to agree to the same contract. Viola. Open source without copyright law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In a world without copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's some confusion here about Open Source and Free Software. The GPL is just a license that uses a technique called Copyleft to proliferate Free Software in the current legal setting. But there is plenty of non-Copylefted Free Software.
The FSF advocates that all software should be Free Software; software that satisfies the 4 essential freedoms of software users (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). But Free Softare is not in any way dependent on copyright law. The definition of Free Software makes no reference to copyright. And you don't need to settle for copyright vs. essential freedoms and resort to relying on disassembling software or something like that.
Instead, you can advocate that software should be covered by law that mandates the 4 essential freedoms of software users, in addition to, or in place of copyright.
The FSF (the publisher of the GPL) is not anti-copyright per se. It is pro-software freedom. It is a logically sound position. If this position is appealing to you, read up on it. Don't let blogger prattle throw you like that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In a world without copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not really.
If you don't have copyright (or patent) to your code, I receive no consideration when I take your code and use it in my project. Once I have seen the code, I have all that I need. I can simply ignore what your contract says, state that I have been given nothing of value to compel me to release what I do in kind.
The day-to-day effect of OSS would be the same -- free as in beer software, because there's no law that keeps you from handing your buddy a DVD-R with every piece of software you own. Copyleft, however, would disappear.
(Remember that, if you nullified copyright today, it would apply to every OSS project in existence. MS could take Linux with impunity, Apple could (and would) give a big finger to BSD, and everyone from IBM to Dell would never pay another dollar to an out-of-house software developer ever again -- because they've already got all that they need.)
Parent
Re:In a world without copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
Immediate, monetary profit is what copyright-reform advocates want to protect. As a current example, I think Sony/Marvel/etc. should have the right to make as much dough as they can on the recently released Spider-Man 3 for the next 10 years. After that, it should enter the public domain. The same, I think, should apply to software, books, etc. I could probably be convinced that a reasonable compromise would be 20 years (at least until corporations actually get used to having to create instead of indefinitely rehash). Any longer than that, with high-speed distribution (get the product out) and the availability of numerous and sophisticated marketing methods (let people know about the product), actually serves to stifle creativity more than it helps.
Parent
GPL != Open source (Score:5, Insightful)
However there are other forms of open source software too, many of which do not rely on copyright in any shape or form.
Ultimately, open source software is a philosophy and changing the legal tools will not change too much. The GPL is also just a tool and even if the GPL was to be ruled invalid (or was invalidated by the removal of copyright laws) not much would change. When the Shroud of Turin was shown to be fake the nuns didn't commit mass suicide; similarly open source software will continue, with or without copyright, GPL or whatever icons.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
abolish copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly - straw man argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Ensure Fair Use? Sure.
Restrict copyright to a reasonable 20 or 30 years (even though 5 years would probably be sufficient for most purposes)? Sure.
Abolish it entirely? Well, it probably wouldn't hurt as much as some people think it would, but it wouldn't be especially useful either, as long as Fair Use is allowed and it expires after a reasonable 20 or 30 years.
Parent
Re:abolish copyright (Score:4, Informative)
What RMS and ideologically similar people have proposed is this: software should not be covered under copyright law. You can see this ideal most clearly if you head over to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [gnu.org] and read the two articles called "Why Software Should {Be Free,Not Have Owners}". While I disagree with his philosophy, he makes a pretty solid empirical case for why software should not be "owned" in the same sense that books are "owned" by their author or art is "owned" by the artist.
The author of the article also fails to pick up on a key point about the GPL and why it exists: because there is copyright law, the FSF must use copyright law to accomplish their goals. If software was suddenly declared ineligible for copyright, there'd be no need for the GPL because no proprietary software company could prevent people with access to their source code from modifying or redistributing it, nor could they prevent people from modifying or distributing binary copies of the software. This is a small step back from the current state where the group of people with access to the GPL'd source code includes everyone with a copy of the binary, but it's a giant leap forward in eliminating all the complex legal issues around who can copy what and where.
--K
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know about that. If I, for example, steal someone's car I'm not necessary against property rights in general; I'm just a thieving bastard.
Re:abolish copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can oppose copyright ... and support BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
An argument from thin air. (Score:5, Interesting)
The author in question cites an ethereal 'anti-copyright crowd' and proposes that this 'crowd' are those who would license their software under the GNU/GPL.
I don't think I really need to point out that the reality is very different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, because everyone knows that disassemblers are amazing at discovering the intent of deliberately obfuscated code (it will be obfuscated by the compiler, to prevent reverse-engineering). Who needs comments anyway? This is why the r300 and nouveau projec
I've said it before (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the GPL is like a Judo move. It rests on the strength of copyright law. If you make copyright stronger, then you make the GPL stronger. It's like a Judo master using his opponent's strength against him.
Ahh, straw men (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, mod me down -1 cynical.
Of course he's in favor of copyrights ... (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Another sophomoric Sunday blog post. (Score:5, Insightful)
His argument is putting up a straw man that doesn't really represent what RMS and FSF think, and then knocking it down.
The FSF stance is that good software comes with source code and with a particular set of rights which should be yours regardless of whether copyright can be used to enforce those rights or not. Perhaps it would be some other sort of law, or perhaps an ethical norm.
But IMO it would make about 100 times more sense to argue about software patents at the moment, because they are by far the worse evil.
Bruce
Re:Another sophomoric Sunday blog post. (Score:5, Informative)
And by the way, my employer makes Open Source software for Wall Street investment banking firms. I am, however, also paid by customers (usually also Wall Street investment banks, but sometimes other entities) who want me to teach or lecture.
Bruce
Parent
Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Without copyright, the world works like pretty much like the GPL intends, and the BSDL is redundant since it grants nothing that isn't already allowed, whereas there's no "intellectual property" that can conceivably be subverted downstream.
It's the fact that the GPL gives the same result whether copyright laws exist or not that makes it such a solid foundation for software freedom (modulo minor bugs).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? A world without copyright doesn't need redistribution clauses, because redistribution happens whenever people want to.
Now that's bullshit. People who publis
Wait (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not a big fan of the GPL, but I don't think public domain or a BSD-type deal is going to work either. But for everything I've ever read from Stallman and friends, I don't really think they have it down, either. It's as if they are sitting there hoping something will happen that will validate their position and everything will be kumbaya and honky dory. What that is they have no idea.
Stallman can rewrite his license until the cows come home, but without some real change in the legal area it won't really make much difference. And piling restrictions up on top of the GPL can only go so far. Not his fault - that's just reality.
And that's just for software... wait 'til you get into music and images and whatnot. The Creative Commons are in the same bind.
What about limited copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of us use Windows 98 anymore still? How many think it should become public domain next year?
Copyright has one purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of that, pure binary data that has no meaning for a human being should have no copyright protection, only creations that a human can understand. No copyrights for binary executable files or data that has been copy protected or encrypted in any form, only for source code or data such as video or music that is published in a format that is open and unencumbered by any form of copy protection or secrecy.
Otherwise, how can the creation ever come into the public domain? How will one be able to read those DVDs when (and if!!!) their copyright ever expires? What's the point of granting a copyright for something that has never been published, such as the source code of commercial software?
If you use copy protection in any form, either by encryption or by a trade secret, then you are able to protect your own intellectual property, you don't need the protection that the state grants you in the form of patents and copyrights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course binaries should be copyrighted. I mean we were copyrighting movies long before computers existed and they're not written text. Binaries are of value to customers and therefore should be protected from rampant copying without rights. Otherwise, what's the incentive to write software? Sure you can switch the business model around, but how many people would honestly pre-order software which they've never seen before? Video games being the exception. I know
No duh (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL was always a copyright license, in fact, ALL licenses are copyright driven. The only terms which are not is the public domain which cannot, by definition, have a copyright applied to it.
Anyone who thinks OSS is about abolishing copyright doesn't know what they are talking about.
Tom
Right.... (Score:4, Informative)
Just because you support the GPL as a good fix in the current climate does not mean you approve of the current climate. BSD fails for many projects because a company will walk in, grab the code, edit it a little to add proprietary components, sell it and hurt the development of the free project. See wine.
While the GPL isn't ideal, it defeats the "I am going to take your code, make a small change and call it mine" that wouldn't exist if no copyright existed in the first place. If copyright didn't exist, decompiling and DRM cracks would quickly negate any attempts to restrict use of code/programs.
Take music for example. Some guy makes a background track under the GPL; people use it in their GPL songs or pay (for the development of more free background tracks) to use it in non-free songs. Then take one who puts it under something BSD-ish. The RIAA comes in, sticks Brittney Spears on top of it, makes millions of $$$ and goes around suing people that didn't pay them for what they only edited.
Not to say that's likely, but it's a good example. If all open projects used the BSD, it's more likely than not MS/Apple would have just taken the best, stuck it in a proprietary package and sold it, making it so open projects could never get ahead or even catch up. Hell Apple already did this, with BSD itself none the less. How many times do people on slashdot alone say that they used to use Linux/BSD until OS X came around that had all the best of open software, except the fact that it was truly open?
So far as I care, the only reason I use the GPL and not BSD is because I don't want someone else having a full copyright on something using what I created. That's not why I created it.
The problem with copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Get angry at the authors/publishers for abusing copyright terms. Not the law.
Tom
Re:The problem with copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The problem with copyright... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
In other words: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're a green-peace activist, you can't drive to rallys.
If you're a vegetarian, you can't eat yogurt.
Now to be fair, the article has points that aren't drowned in sensationalism. Like, for example, how non-copyrighted works could be taken away and used by corporations. Which, in a copyright-free environment, would be perfectly OK.
The opening "joke" is key to understanding the logic. Either you'd sleep with someone for money OR you wouldn't, price is irrelevant to whether you're a whore or not. Similarly, either you'd never use copyright for anything OR you would, context be damned. So Open Source advocates who see OS as the only way to make something work under the current system are tarred with the same impractical black-and-white brush as a woman who would sleep with someone for enough money to guarantee a college education and financial security for her children.
Utter lack of taste or tact aside, this is just one philosopher shouting that a different philosopher should change their symbols, with no grounding in utility or practicality.
This is just typical FUD BS (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody is against copyright per se. What people are against is how copyright is used to damage the principle for which it was founded. Artists should have copyright to their work. Distribution companies should not. If you write some really nifty software you should have copyrights to it, not a patent unless it seems to revolutionize the software industry or some part of it.
What people (/. in general) are against is using that copyright authority to run roughshod over the public with it. Nobody really wants musicians to give their art away for free. What we see today is a backlash on the business model of the RIAA and their member companies. I don't think that there are many people that aren't willing to pay a modest/reasonable price for a CD. They do however want to be able to use that CD and its content where ever they want to, including loaning it to a friend, reselling it, or making backup copies so they don't have to purchase it multiple times. These issues have nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with how the **AA (and consequently the government) abuse copyright law to line their own pockets.
The people who write OSS software deserve the copyrights to that, and I often contribute to those projects that I feel I use and enjoy. Hell, I even once bought a copy of winzip. As far as patents go, even the USPTO/courts are starting to realize that the patent situation is totally out of control, and harming business interests as well as damaging the public good that it was meant to foster. Notice that recent rulings may invalidate the patents that Verizon holds that were used to nearly drive Vonage out of business. That is exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do.
To say that the F/OSS community in general doesn't like copyright or patents is absurd. What they don't like (and I'm taking liberties in speaking for them) is how they are used to drive unjust revenues at the expense of the public and the original content producers. iTMS is evidence that people will pay for content if it is usable, though I have some questions about how ultimately useful iTunes DRM'ed music actually is.
If patents and copyrights were applied in a logical and fair manner, producing the productivity and benefits they are supposed to, nobody on
-1 flamebait for the submission (Score:4, Insightful)
1) You can oppose copyright and support open-source at the same time. In fact, if you do oppose copyright, you're only viable strategy IS to support open-source, while copyright is THE LAW and stuff.
2) You can also support a concept while knowing that it is unimplementable. You can find several examples in History books.
3) "members of the anti-copyright crowd cite the GPL (GNU Public License) as an alternative to copyright" is not an example of irony but of a practical stop-gap solution.
4) The "look at what happens if the GPL is unenforceable." is a bizarre glimpse into a strange world that conveniently ignores a bunch of nasty truths, all in all pretty well debunked on other comments, although I find it most revealing that the "world without GPL", does have DRM! The "dreamworld" turns out to be more like a "strawworld" [wikipedia.org].
My personal opinion is that copyright has a place, and therefore should not be abolished, in a *perfect world*. However, due to the fact that the world is what it is, I would be perfectly happy with that bloated-and-abused-out-of-proportion-sorry-excuse
*puff*
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright should never persist beyond 20 years since date of copyright, even if the creator dies during this period (for the purpose of the estate of the copyright holder, I am thinking of the children after all).
Just think of everything that has been devised 20 years ago and earlier. A lot of rich content could be in the public domain. Imagine the innovation that could take place with people creating derivative works!
RTFM (Score:5, Informative)
Welcome, sir. To start, why don't you Read the Fine Manual?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org]
The FSF is an organization committed to the advancement of Free Software. The FSF contends that proprietary (non-Free) software development and distribution is unethical and should cease because it fails to satisfy the 4 essential freedoms of software users.
Free software is software that satisfies the 4 essential freedoms of users of software. These freedoms are completely independent of Copyright's existence or non-existence. The definition of Free Software makes no mention of copyright.
Absent the voluntary or involuntary elimination of proprietary software, the Free Software Foundation generally encourages the use of Copyleft. You seem to be confused about the difference between Free Software and Copyleft. Free Software is software that satisfies the 4 essential freedoms of software users. Copyleft, on the other hand, is a licensing strategy employed wherin existing Copyright law is leveraged to further the proliferation of Free Software. There is much non-Copylefted Free Software.
You also seem to confuse Open Source with Free Software or Copyleft. These are all quite different things.
Once again, I refer you to the Fine manual:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
Having said all this, please consider taking a few minutes to inform yourself in the future before making wild generalizations about people and organizations you know nothing about. And congrats on completing sophomore year!
Causality problem (Score:5, Interesting)
If there was no copyright there would not be a need for the GPL because there would not be a restriction on copying, modifying and redistributing the source. The GPL is a counter-measure and as such its existence is dependent on that of the measure it counters. If you agree with a counter-measure it is a logical fallacy to say that the original measure is good because without it we couldn't fight against it...
The article goes into scenarios where Big Bad Megacorp steals your code and distributes DRM protected binaries because there's no copyright. Well, first of all the 'R' in DRM would not be there if there was no copyright. They had no legal basis of using any measure to stop you to copy the program. They can use technical measures, but if you defeat them, they're out of luck.
The Big Bad Megacorp would need a different business model to rip you off. I bet they'd find a way. It wouldn't be based on their exclusive right to copy a work, that's all. The current content provider industry business model uses copyright as the basis of their revenue. They would sink and some other industry would pop up that uses some other aspect to make money. Of course the copyright lobby is scared about *their* income going down and it's no consolation for them that some other businesses would became filthy rich if copyright was abolished, so they fight to protect and extend copyright as much as possible.
The GPL fights back at least in the software segment of the copyright business. But the GPL is only good because it undoes the restrictions that the copyright places on you (by ingeniously using the very law that protects the copyright industry's content) to provide you the freedom the industry wants to deny. Without copyright there wouldn't be GPL because there would not be a need for it.