Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
Yavor Doganov informed me, that Richard Stallman published a new version of his article "Freedom or Copyright" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html. I await your cmments :)
Generally speaking I share Richard Stallman's opinion, but I'm not sure whether Copyright was a good idea. But you can't alter the past and now it's time to abolish such laws, because they inhibit a more effective production by factitious stringency and therefore allow everyone to take part in cultural development.
If copyright is abolished, then there's no more GPL. What about that?
br Carsten
Generally speaking I share Richard Stallman's opinion, but I'm not sure whether Copyright was a good idea. But you can't alter the past and now it's time to abolish such laws, because they inhibit a more effective production by factitious stringency and therefore allow everyone to take part in cultural development.
If copyright is abolished, then there's no more GPL. What about that?
One should introduce a new law that respects the rights of all users instead. Copyright does not do this without some hackery (e.g. the GPL).
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Generally speaking I share Richard Stallman's opinion, but I'm not sure whether Copyright was a good idea. But you can't alter the past and now it's time to abolish such laws, because they inhibit a more effective production by factitious stringency and therefore allow everyone to take part in cultural development.
If copyright is abolished, then there's no more GPL. What about that?
One should introduce a new law that respects the rights of all users instead. Copyright does not do this without some hackery (e.g. the GPL).
Yes, that's a clever trick. I haven't thought about it, but it's really obvious.
Regards Matthias-Christian
On 08-Feb-2008, Carsten Agger wrote:
If copyright is abolished, then there's no more GPL. What about that?
That's fine. The GPL uses the term "copyleft" deliberately: its goal is to *give back* to recipients of works what copyright takes away.
In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL.
That would be a good day.
Am Samstag, den 09.02.2008, 12:53 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL.
I don't think so. Without copyright, everybody still had the chance to hide the source and only publish the binaries. Everybody still had the chance to write software that only works on specific hardware, to write software that checks BIOS serial numbers, or whatever.
Thanks, Reinhard
Reinhard Mueller mueller@fsfeurope.org wrote:
Am Samstag, den 09.02.2008, 12:53 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL.
I don't think so. Without copyright, everybody still had the chance to hide the source and only publish the binaries. Everybody still had the chance to write software that only works on specific hardware, to write software that checks BIOS serial numbers, or whatever.
As mentioned you could invent an other law that prohibits such actions. But to abolish copyright law you need to have a majority (at least in an ideal democracy that is not existing) and thus there has to be a change of consciousness. Eliminating copyright law only solves half of the problem: It makes factitious stringency impossible, but doesn't force the manufacturers to release their source code and allow modification and sharing of it. When everyone can copy a malicious proprietary software like Windows Vista without getting sued, it's still a bad system.
Thanks, Reinhard
Regards Matthias-Christian
On 2008-02-09 10:03, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 09.02.2008, 12:53 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL.
I don't think so. Without copyright, everybody still had the chance to hide the source and only publish the binaries. Everybody still had the chance to write software that only works on specific hardware, to write software that checks BIOS serial numbers, or whatever.
Without copyright so called piracy would be legal and thus proprietary software looses its commodity character, because it would no longer be scarce. Then, all proprietary software would be out-cooperated by free software, which bases on non-scarcity, e.g. abundance.
But this scenario also develops with copyright, it only takes a longer time to out-cooperate proprietary software.
Ciao, Stefan
Stefan Meretz stefan.meretz@hbv.org wrote:
On 2008-02-09 10:03, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 09.02.2008, 12:53 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL.
I don't think so. Without copyright, everybody still had the chance to hide the source and only publish the binaries. Everybody still had the chance to write software that only works on specific hardware, to write software that checks BIOS serial numbers, or whatever.
Without copyright so called piracy would be legal and thus proprietary software looses its commodity character, because it would no longer be scarce. Then, all proprietary software would be out-cooperated by free software, which bases on non-scarcity, e.g. abundance.
But this scenario also develops with copyright, it only takes a longer time to out-cooperate proprietary software.
Sorry for overlooking your post.
What do you mean by out-cooperate?
Regards Matthias-Christian
On 2008-02-11 14:19, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Without copyright so called piracy would be legal and thus proprietary software looses its commodity character, because it would no longer be scarce. Then, all proprietary software would be out-cooperated by free software, which bases on non-scarcity, e.g. abundance.
But this scenario also develops with copyright, it only takes a longer time to out-cooperate proprietary software.
Sorry for overlooking your post.
What do you mean by out-cooperate?
This is a term used by Geert Lovink in an interview with Christoph Spehr on free cooperation first, but was rapidly adopted in cutural debates: http://www.networkcultures.org/geert/out-cooperating-the-empire-exchange-wit...
It means that successful competition is reached by cooperation. The competition is not won on the old field, but by opening a new field. Example: Encyclopedia Britannica was out-cooperated by Wikipedia, not by competiting on the old proprietary field, but by opening a new field of free cooperation. And of course: Free software is on the way of out-cooperating proprietary software.
Thus, on the field of cooperation, nothing is stronger than free cooperation. Proprietary production can only prevail on its field (for some time) by using additional external forces like copyright exclusion.
Ciao, Stefan
Stefan Meretz stefan.meretz@hbv.org wrote:
On 2008-02-11 14:19, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Without copyright so called piracy would be legal and thus proprietary software looses its commodity character, because it would no longer be scarce. Then, all proprietary software would be out-cooperated by free software, which bases on non-scarcity, e.g. abundance.
But this scenario also develops with copyright, it only takes a longer time to out-cooperate proprietary software.
Sorry for overlooking your post.
What do you mean by out-cooperate?
This is a term used by Geert Lovink in an interview with Christoph Spehr on free cooperation first, but was rapidly adopted in cutural debates: http://www.networkcultures.org/geert/out-cooperating-the-empire-exchange-wit...
By his definition out-occoperation is:
"Obviously, we have an idea of positive out-cooperating – this is when new forms of collaboration arise that are applied by the workers themselves, and old forms of hierarchy get ruled out in the same process."
"And we have a notion of negative out-cooperating – that is, when global power structures aim at the dis-empowerment of workers and local people, when hierarchy is re-inforced by the power of being global, of combining and re-combining global workforce, resources and markets without participation of workers and people."
It means that successful competition is reached by cooperation. The competition is not won on the old field, but by opening a new field. Example: Encyclopedia Britannica was out-cooperated by Wikipedia, not by competiting on the old proprietary field, but by opening a new field of free cooperation. And of course: Free software is on the way of out-cooperating proprietary software.
But this requires people who believe in Free Software and Wikipedia.
However it will lead to parallel existence of two systems and the more authoritarian system which will dominate by force will win. This force could be law. Thus we have to fight back. The GNU GPL is such weapon, more specifically a powerful virus which will infiltrate the copyright system and finally let it collapse.
Thus, on the field of cooperation, nothing is stronger than free cooperation. Proprietary production can only prevail on its field (for some time) by using additional external forces like copyright exclusion.
Yes, this is definitively true, but again you need people.
If you say from the first that it's impossible, it won't happen. You have to believe in it.
Ciao, Stefan
Regards Matthias-Christian
On 2008-02-11 20:11, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
It means that successful competition is reached by cooperation. The competition is not won on the old field, but by opening a new field. Example: Encyclopedia Britannica was out-cooperated by Wikipedia, not by competiting on the old proprietary field, but by opening a new field of free cooperation. And of course: Free software is on the way of out-cooperating proprietary software.
But this requires people who believe in Free Software and Wikipedia.
However it will lead to parallel existence of two systems and the more authoritarian system which will dominate by force will win. This force could be law. Thus we have to fight back. The GNU GPL is such weapon, more specifically a powerful virus which will infiltrate the copyright system and finally let it collapse.
GPL is a defensive means, not an end in itself, our strength comes from cooperation. When exclusion by copyright goes, then GPL will go too.
Ciao, Stefan
On 09-Feb-2008, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 09.02.2008, 12:53 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL.
I don't think so. Without copyright, everybody still had the chance to hide the source and only publish the binaries. Everybody still had the chance to write software that only works on specific hardware, to write software that checks BIOS serial numbers, or whatever.
Without copyright, there's no copyright law preventing anyone who gets their hands on the source code — like, say, someone working with the entity that would otherwise be the copyright holder — from distributing that source code to whomever pays them.