Open source and licenses are incompatible concepts.
Because open source acknowledges the uncontrollable freedom of information that is an inherent result of the laws of physics. But licenses try to put rules on that freedom. Something that cannot possibly ever work.
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
Simple: Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document, stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly break the "law" by copying your software without a license. So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal normativity.
Then, nobody who backs imaginary property, can ever use your software. And if they try anyway, you of course sue them, using their own weapons against them. And the only legal way out you offer them, is a contract where they give up all their imaginary property shemes for all eternity, and all their works go to the public domain forever. Retroactively too. They can of course refuse to settle, and go to court. You'll be using Content Mafia math(TM), to calculate the damages they owe you. Bwahahahahaa! (Payable in transferral of all their imaginary property to you, too, of course. rofl)
Open source and licenses are incompatible concepts.
On the contrary, open source is very much dependent upon licenses, and depend on copyright (yes, copyright).
When you write something sufficiently unique it is convered by copyright. By licensing your work you give away some of the right given to you under copyright laws, if your will, specified in the license, is followed. In open source it is about derivative work being shared under the same license so we can continue to build on something even though copyright normally would prevent that. So the license is needed.
You might have strong (negative) feelings about copyright, but as long as you live in a society where there are copyright laws you are affected by them.
Because open source acknowledges the uncontrollable freedom of information that is an inherent result of the laws of physics.
There is no such thing. That is the ramblings of an idealistic fanboy without grasp of how society works.
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
Simple: Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document, stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly break the "law" by copying your software without a license. So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal normativity.
What you are proposing IS a license, even if you choose to call it "a public statement". But brewing your own license might be worse if those trying to exploit your work can find a loophole in it. Stick to the already existing licenses that have been vetted instead of trying to be a smart-ass and reinventing the wheel (poorly).
Dude, you don't understand. Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*. It doesn't need your copyright, OR your licenses!
Dude, you don't understand. Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*. It doesn't need your copyright, OR your licenses!
Dude, you don't understand. "Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*" is not a thing. You might wish it was, but it isn't. As best it is an internet meme. Just repeating the same bullshit over and over again doesn't make it true. What laws of physics are you referring to?
If you want to get really philosophical about stuff and ramble about the laws of physics, nothing is free. Ever. There is always a cost, even to information.
Freedom (as in speech) is a human legal concept that has nothing to do with the laws of physics except insofar as humans are ultimately collections of objects that obey the laws of physics.
All property is imaginary in the sense you mean. The only thing stopping you from taking my keys and driving my car away is a human legal framework backed by a strong organisation that can have you thrown into jail.
Furthermore, your position is incoherent. You say tell people to ignore the law but then you advocate prosec
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
While I like your solution, I think the premise of the question is wrong here.
People aren't leeching. This still seems to be based on the idea that information has an owner. An idea that I think goes counter to the ideals of open source.
If someone uses my code in a closed source project, what have I lost? I still have the code. Other people can still use my code and modify it as they see fit. Had the other party not used my code we would
Licenses are delusions. Always. (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source and licenses are incompatible concepts.
Because open source acknowledges the uncontrollable freedom of information that is an inherent result of the laws of physics. But licenses try to put rules on that freedom. Something that cannot possibly ever work.
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
Simple: Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document, stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly break the "law" by copying your software without a license.
So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal normativity.
Then, nobody who backs imaginary property, can ever use your software.
And if they try anyway, you of course sue them, using their own weapons against them. And the only legal way out you offer them, is a contract where they give up all their imaginary property shemes for all eternity, and all their works go to the public domain forever. Retroactively too.
They can of course refuse to settle, and go to court. You'll be using Content Mafia math(TM), to calculate the damages they owe you. Bwahahahahaa!
(Payable in transferral of all their imaginary property to you, too, of course. rofl)
Re:Licenses are delusions. Always. (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source and licenses are incompatible concepts.
On the contrary, open source is very much dependent upon licenses, and depend on copyright (yes, copyright).
When you write something sufficiently unique it is convered by copyright. By licensing your work you give away some of the right given to you under copyright laws, if your will, specified in the license, is followed. In open source it is about derivative work being shared under the same license so we can continue to build on something even though copyright normally would prevent that. So the license is needed.
You might have strong (negative) feelings about copyright, but as long as you live in a society where there are copyright laws you are affected by them.
Because open source acknowledges the uncontrollable freedom of information that is an inherent result of the laws of physics.
There is no such thing. That is the ramblings of an idealistic fanboy without grasp of how society works.
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
Simple: Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document, stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly break the "law" by copying your software without a license. So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal normativity.
What you are proposing IS a license, even if you choose to call it "a public statement". But brewing your own license might be worse if those trying to exploit your work can find a loophole in it. Stick to the already existing licenses that have been vetted instead of trying to be a smart-ass and reinventing the wheel (poorly).
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you don't understand. Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*. It doesn't need your copyright, OR your licenses!
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, you don't understand. Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*. It doesn't need your copyright, OR your licenses!
Dude, you don't understand. "Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*" is not a thing. You might wish it was, but it isn't. As best it is an internet meme. Just repeating the same bullshit over and over again doesn't make it true. What laws of physics are you referring to?
If you want to get really philosophical about stuff and ramble about the laws of physics, nothing is free. Ever. There is always a cost, even to information.
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh.... ;)
If you really want to argue this ridiculous point, you should do it with the OP, Barefoot. I wouldn't recommend it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom (as in speech) is a human legal concept that has nothing to do with the laws of physics except insofar as humans are ultimately collections of objects that obey the laws of physics.
All property is imaginary in the sense you mean. The only thing stopping you from taking my keys and driving my car away is a human legal framework backed by a strong organisation that can have you thrown into jail.
Furthermore, your position is incoherent. You say tell people to ignore the law but then you advocate prosec
Re: (Score:3)
Oh dear. I really should have included sarcasm tags.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a piece of work, saying you have a scheme for open source that will be enforced by...drumroll... copyright law if anyone violates your wishes.
Contradiction.
Open source relies on copyright; even your imagined "solution" does.
Re: (Score:1)
While I like your solution, I think the premise of the question is wrong here.
People aren't leeching. This still seems to be based on the idea that information has an owner. An idea that I think goes counter to the ideals of open source.
If someone uses my code in a closed source project, what have I lost? I still have the code. Other people can still use my code and modify it as they see fit. Had the other party not used my code we would
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong. The newest version of GPL is designed to prevent TiVoization. People just don't listen.