5 ms·
There are those of us who completely disagree with copyright law. How many years have been wasted on projects like Samba because of draconian copyright? Much si
by bxc89 13y ago
There are those of us who completely disagree with copyright law. How many years have been wasted on projects like Samba because of draconian copyright? Much simpler and cleaner to acquire the source.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoWasting man-years on reimplementing software is not a large enough problem to decide that authors no longer have any rights with their product.
- icebraining 13y agoAgreed, there are much better reasons for doing so.
- ouaibe 13y agoContrary to popular belief, copyright law doesn't exist to ascertain dominion from an author onto it's creation. It exists to regulate exchanges and distribution of such creation, giving a controlled and finite monopoly to the original author with a guarantee that said creation ends up in the public domain. GPL exists to bypass such monopoly and implement a form of public domain (copyleft) that is compatible with copyright law.
- serf 13y agobut it is a large enough problem. Wasting man years is precisely the problem. Our collective knowledge is boundless, but time is finite. See the problem here? Why would we want to waste the effort of future generations with the problems of yesterday? So that an individual can live more comfortably with exclusive privileges to something that benefits all of mankind? We shouldn't be working towards selfishness and arbitrary contractual law.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 13y agoWhy are you talking about infringing on the GPL? OP infringed on a "proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung", not on GPL licensed code.
- bad_user 13y agoI'm sorry, unfortunately I haven't read the TFA before commenting.
- bradleyjg 13y agoIf you disagree with it, you are free not to copyright your own works.
- phaemon 13y agoThat's like saying if you disagree with slavery, you're free not to own slaves. Copyright places a restriction on what I can do with information I legally have in my possession. It is a restriction on my freedom of expression. You might argue that the restriction is worth it in order to encourage artists, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.
- bradleyjg 13y agoIt's awfully convenient that this fundamental right you are positing allows you to use other's work without doing anything at all yourself. Like so many unrealistic libertarian positions the grandparent demands the fruits of civilization while rejecting the very rules that made them possible. There exists even to this day places where you can freely live in something very much like a state of nature, where life continues to be nasty, brutish, and short but you have maximal FREEDOM!
- phaemon 13y agoI didn't posit the right to freedom of expression. It's been around a long time. And I don't pirate anything, and do produce work that would qualify for copyright, so how is it convenient for me? As for your second point: I should support bad laws because otherwise I must be supporting anarchy? Is that seriously your argument? Perhaps you should give it more thought...
- bradleyjg 13y agoThe original post in this thread wasn't talking about supporting or not supporting bad laws, he was talking about ignoring them ("much simpler and cleaner to acquire the source"). Ignoring laws because you disagree with them is anarchy. Also while applications of copyright impact freedom of expression (i.e. The Wind Done Gone, there are plenty that don't. There's nothing expressive about pirating software, and very little expressive in redistributing unmodified or barely modified proprietary software.