[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Gitlab and Gitorious (was Re: support me)

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Gitlab and Gitorious (was Re: support me)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:48:34 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0

I said earlier in the thread (which is indeed a tangent from the main
topic of GitLab and Gitorious (about GitLab's dual-licensed
free/proprietary situation):

* Abolish copyright
* Mandate source release for published software
* Prohibit DRM

That's my general framework, and this isn't the time or place to discuss
implementation details. I mention it because I want this to be the
general position of free software: that we use Copyright law for
copyleft because that's practical, but that we would prefer better
protections for software freedom and are not aligned with those
promoting copyright restrictions generally. So, my framework there is
just a general concept for expressing our real values.

On 03/09/2015 10:31 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Well silly me, but I thought this was a divergent thread from a request
> for support re. a Gitlab/Gitorious clone.
> But.. be that as it may be.  Without copyright, or something like it,
> what might you suggest as an alternative for protecting FOSS software? 
> Without copyright enforcement, and an appropriate license (i.e.,
> copyleft) - what's to prevent folks taking someone's open source code,
> compiling it, then releasing only the binary?
> Miles Fidelman
> Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> Miles, the whole point about discussing copyright law involves
>> acknowledging that we're talking about changing the law. Thus, it's all
>> rhetorical at this point and we shouldn't take tons of time with it. My
>> point initially is to distinguish between talking about the way the law
>> ought to be vs talking about the status quo.
>> We must acknowledge that copyleft today relies on copyright law. We do
>> not need to suggest that we support copyright law, however. If we had
>> the power to change the law, we could institute other protections for
>> software freedom that were not tied in this hacky way to copyright.
>> Since we can't easily change the law, that's not a discussion worth
>> going into detail on. It's just important that we politically distance
>> ourselves from copyright apologists and maximalists.
>> On 03/09/2015 04:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Will Hill wrote:
>>>> I'd rather deliver a knock out blow to them by removing copyright
>>>> protection
>>>> for non free software.
>>> For those who are advocating this, can I assume that you realize this
>>> would require a change to the law, unless authors explicitly release
>>> their software to the "public domain?"  (Works are automatically
>>> copyrighted by their author, unless you go to lengths to avoid it.)  I
>>> expect the likelihood of such a legal change is just about nil.
>>> And... if you DO release code to the public domain, that leaves others
>>> free to make a few modifications, and/or bundle that code with other
>>> code, and copyright the whole mess.
>>> Copyleft, among other things, is a way to prevent that kind of abuse.
>>> Miles Fidelman

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]