Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Opensource (was - Experimenting with Web/Usenet gateway)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
immibis
Jan 15, 2024, 12:21:35 AM1/15/24
to
(crosspost and followup-to e-s.talk)
On 1/14/24 12:36, Jim Jackson wrote:
> On 2024-01-14, immibis <ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>> ... snip ... Open source is the diametric opposite of
>> the intentions of the design of copyright law.
>
> Actually it isn't. Open Source is about licensing not copyright. You can
> release software under an Opensource License e.g. GPL2 or 3, and still
> retain copyright over the work.
>
Copyright licenses are exceptions to copyright granted by the copyright
owner. If you have a copyrighted work I wish to distribute, I may offer
to pay you $1 per copy, and you may agree. This is a license - like any
agreement, the legalese is optional, but may be very useful in case of a
possible dispute later. Without an agreement, you could sue me for
infringing your copyright.
The intention of copyright is that *nobody* can use or reproduce a
creative work without asking the copyright owner.
The copyright owner can also publish a one-sided "agreement", or
license, granting permission automatically under the circumstances they
desire, such as for non-commercial use.
FOSS subverts the intention of copyright law by having the copyright
owner publish a one-sided "agreement" which essentially says: you can
reproduce this and make derivative works, if you share. If you try to
enforce your copyright other than to enforce this agreement itself, you
lose the right to have made the reproduction or derivative work.
It's a bit like a copyright suicide pact, or copyright extortion: If you
sue someone in a way I don't like, because you agreed to this license I
can sue you and win.
That's opposite to the normal intention of copyright, which is to enable
suing people, not prevent it.
On 1/14/24 12:36, Jim Jackson wrote:
> On 2024-01-14, immibis <ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>> ... snip ... Open source is the diametric opposite of
>> the intentions of the design of copyright law.
>
> Actually it isn't. Open Source is about licensing not copyright. You can
> release software under an Opensource License e.g. GPL2 or 3, and still
> retain copyright over the work.
>
Copyright licenses are exceptions to copyright granted by the copyright
owner. If you have a copyrighted work I wish to distribute, I may offer
to pay you $1 per copy, and you may agree. This is a license - like any
agreement, the legalese is optional, but may be very useful in case of a
possible dispute later. Without an agreement, you could sue me for
infringing your copyright.
The intention of copyright is that *nobody* can use or reproduce a
creative work without asking the copyright owner.
The copyright owner can also publish a one-sided "agreement", or
license, granting permission automatically under the circumstances they
desire, such as for non-commercial use.
FOSS subverts the intention of copyright law by having the copyright
owner publish a one-sided "agreement" which essentially says: you can
reproduce this and make derivative works, if you share. If you try to
enforce your copyright other than to enforce this agreement itself, you
lose the right to have made the reproduction or derivative work.
It's a bit like a copyright suicide pact, or copyright extortion: If you
sue someone in a way I don't like, because you agreed to this license I
can sue you and win.
That's opposite to the normal intention of copyright, which is to enable
suing people, not prevent it.
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 15, 2024, 3:38:33 AM1/15/24
to
immibis <ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 1/14/24 12:36, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>On 2024-01-14, immibis <ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>>>... snip ... Open source is the diametric opposite of
>>>the intentions of the design of copyright law.
>>Actually it isn't. Open Source is about licensing not copyright. You can
>>release software under an Opensource License e.g. GPL2 or 3, and still
>>retain copyright over the work.
>Copyright licenses are exceptions to copyright granted by the copyright
>owner.
Exceptions? No, it's permission. This is the intent of the law.
>On 1/14/24 12:36, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>On 2024-01-14, immibis <ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>>>... snip ... Open source is the diametric opposite of
>>>the intentions of the design of copyright law.
>>Actually it isn't. Open Source is about licensing not copyright. You can
>>release software under an Opensource License e.g. GPL2 or 3, and still
>>retain copyright over the work.
>Copyright licenses are exceptions to copyright granted by the copyright
>owner.
The rest snipped. Dear gawd
>. . .
Jim Jackson
Jan 15, 2024, 3:35:04 PM1/15/24
to
0 new messages