7 ms·

You should check out this thing called open source software

deaton 4mo ago
Open source software is unique in that it takes little to no capital investment to create. People post free art too. It doesn't mean that Game of Thrones didn't cost anything to produce.
- cortesoft 4mo ago
  Writing books and creating music also takes no capital investment
  - deaton 4mo ago
    And people do do those things out of passion, and many of them are happy to share it so you can listen to it for free. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control what happens to what they made.
    - cortesoft 4mo ago
      Sure, but you said that open source software is unique because it doesn't take capital. It isn't unique, as demonstrated by the two other examples (out of many) that I posted. Whether someone should own the right to control is a separate issue. Your previous response made it seem like the lack of capital requirement was the distinction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You argued that if you didn't own the copyright, there would be no incentive for creating and sharing work. Someone said that open source software shows that you can have creative work without needing to maintain ownership. You then said that was only applicable to software. It clearly isn't, because of my examples.
      - joquarky 4mo ago
        Unfortunately, you're fighting an endless battle. Copyright maximalists always move the goalposts when you pin them down.
    - joquarky 4mo ago
      > That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control What value system grants the right to control what you make? Outside human culture, where does nature exhibit this value?
bachmeier 4mo ago
> You should check out this thing called open source software Open source actually demonstrates that copyright serves a purpose. There are still customers for non-open software, even when open alternatives exist, so the ability to monetize brings new offerings to the economy.
koonsolo 4mo ago
You should check out this thing called GPL that is the standard license of open source projects like Linux, and heavily depends on copyright laws. Or are you suggesting open source software is public domain?
- 4chandaily 4mo ago
  You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
  - koonsolo 4mo ago
    You are not a developer so you don't understand you can compile to a binary without revealing your sources? No copyright -> No GPL -> anyone can release their own close source version of open source software. Why do you think GPL was create in the first place? We always had public domain you know.
    - 4chandaily 4mo ago
      My compilers work just fine? Perhaps I'm not sure what your point is.
      - koonsolo 4mo ago
        My point is that you are unable to understand the difference between GPL and public domain.
        4chandaily 4mo ago
        Okay.
  - mitthrowaway2 4mo ago

Open source software is unique in that it takes little to no capital investment to create. People post free art too. It doesn't mean that Game of Thrones didn't cost anything to produce.

cortesoft 4mo ago
Writing books and creating music also takes no capital investment
- deaton 4mo ago
  And people do do those things out of passion, and many of them are happy to share it so you can listen to it for free. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control what happens to what they made.
  - cortesoft 4mo ago
    Sure, but you said that open source software is unique because it doesn't take capital. It isn't unique, as demonstrated by the two other examples (out of many) that I posted. Whether someone should own the right to control is a separate issue. Your previous response made it seem like the lack of capital requirement was the distinction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You argued that if you didn't own the copyright, there would be no incentive for creating and sharing work. Someone said that open source software shows that you can have creative work without needing to maintain ownership. You then said that was only applicable to software. It clearly isn't, because of my examples.
    - joquarky 4mo ago
      Unfortunately, you're fighting an endless battle. Copyright maximalists always move the goalposts when you pin them down.
  - joquarky 4mo ago
    > That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control What value system grants the right to control what you make? Outside human culture, where does nature exhibit this value?

bachmeier 4mo ago

> You should check out this thing called open source software Open source actually demonstrates that copyright serves a purpose. There are still customers for non-open software, even when open alternatives exist, so the ability to monetize brings new offerings to the economy.

koonsolo 4mo ago

You should check out this thing called GPL that is the standard license of open source projects like Linux, and heavily depends on copyright laws. Or are you suggesting open source software is public domain?

4chandaily 4mo ago
You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
- koonsolo 4mo ago
  You are not a developer so you don't understand you can compile to a binary without revealing your sources? No copyright -> No GPL -> anyone can release their own close source version of open source software. Why do you think GPL was create in the first place? We always had public domain you know.
  - 4chandaily 4mo ago
    My compilers work just fine? Perhaps I'm not sure what your point is.
    - koonsolo 4mo ago
      My point is that you are unable to understand the difference between GPL and public domain.
      - 4chandaily 4mo ago
        Okay.
- mitthrowaway2 4mo ago