I think once software rights are recognized more widely, we will look back on this time of information “ownership” and the “illegality” of copying source code the same way we now look back on slavery and the “illegality” of runaway slaves.
In what possible world could you imagine that a system that lets people control the fruit of their voluntary work is in any possible way related to the idea that a man can be somebody else’s property?
I’m fine with restricting creator copyright to life + 18 years.
I am absolutely not.
Copyright’s original purpose was as an incentive creativity giving authors a temporal monopoly in the ultimate interest of the public domain. This is why, originally, before all the lobbying (Disney…), the terms were reasonable.
18 years would on its own be plenty. At that point, for most works out there, the author isn’t getting much benefit if at all, anymore. Thus the balance should tip on the the public domain.
When on top of that “life” comes into play, it’s particularly fucked up, as it effectively prevents authors from ever seeing derivative works, no matter how long their lives are, unless they opt-in by releasing their works with permissive enough licenses, which they can’t do anyway because chances are the rights won’t be with the author anymore, but on the hands of some business.
As few authors get to see derivative works, this helps perpetrate the myth that authors’ works are 100% original, when in reality everything is supported on the accumulation of mankind’s cultural body.
Thus, I support shorter (no life nonsense, e.g. EU greens proposal of just 5 years renewable up to 15 years by registering and paying a fee) terms.
Let’s return to copyright being a temporal monopoly in the benefit of public domain.
Right now we have perpetual copyright for the rich and powerful.
I agree in principle that 12~18 years would be a good goal to reach for.
In the spirit of compromise, life of creator + 18 years is something everyone (abolitionists and maximalists) should be able to relate to, and eventually move towards.
Of course there needs to be exemptions for corporations - which are effectively immortal. Any copyright assigned to a legal person is valid in 18 years. A physical person who assigns rights to a legal person also “loses” life + 18 copyright.
I think attempted copyright restrictions are naive and unrealistic in a copy-friendly world, and software has been adept overcoming them since the beginning.
It’s only a matter of time before it is official that software has a right to self-copy and self-determination.
Most likely, but it might be good to stay under the radar until the dust settles since Microsoft is already going after the guy who compiled the source code (see Glaeqen’s comment above).
I mean, MS aren’t selling XP any more, while books and songs still have value. I guess the most charitable explanation is that parts of this are still in Windows 10. Still, this angers my inner rms
XP is (probably) full of source code that MSFT paid other companies for and used with their permission. Even if they wanted to, they probably can’t release a working source tree of Windows XP without getting permission to do so from the other license holders. And for what? Giving people explicit permission to use a product that they no longer are interested in supporting? It’s all downsides.
Still, this angers my inner rms
I’m pretty sure RMS would see the unauthorized release of proprietary source code as wrong and unethical.
no-one is asking MS to support anything or give permission.
Indeed not, this is just a childish prank. Anyone with a cursory knowledge about how software licensing works (both proprietary and FLOSS) will steer well clear of this.
I’m pretty sure RMS would see the unauthorized release of proprietary source code as wrong and unethical.
I have my doubts, particularly if the binaries have been released beforehand.
Now, personally, in the case of Windows XP, and considering the amount of computers that depend on it (and were abandoned when Microsoft abandoned XP), I believe the regulator should step in and actually force microsoft to free the source code, in the name of balance of power between Microsoft and its users.
Creator rights and business rights should be protected, but not beyond what’s reasonable. In this situation, the public interest should weight far more, and the government should act thus.
This would be a compromise already, an alternative to forcing Microsoft to maintain Windows XP forever. With the freed source. Windows XP users could pool their money into maintaining XP themselves.
No, as I actually like the EU green’s proposal regarding copyright terms (5 year, extendable twice to 15yr by registering and paying a fee).
15 years is already plenty, in keeping the original spirit of copyright, which was to give authors a temporary monopoly, in the interest of the public domain.
With excessive copyright terms, the author gets little to no benefit, while the public domain suffers greatly.
Unfortunately not. And this is easily from 5~10 years ago.
I do not know what their current stance is, nor have I seen much activity in the topic (“copyfight”, pirate parties, etc) in a long time. Which saddens me.
The vision then goes on to propose “generally shorter copyright terms, with a usual maximum of 14 years”. By this, we mean that rather than the current maximum of 70 years after the creator’s death, it should only be 14 years after their death. Unfortunately, as written, this appears a bit ambiguous and has caused confusion, so it needs clearing up!
That’s peculiar. How come?
Remarkable, although illegal.
It sure puts the insanity of copyright terms in perspective.
I think once software rights are recognized more widely, we will look back on this time of information “ownership” and the “illegality” of copying source code the same way we now look back on slavery and the “illegality” of runaway slaves.
That may be a little strong of a comparison.
In what possible world could you imagine that a system that lets people control the fruit of their voluntary work is in any possible way related to the idea that a man can be somebody else’s property?
I am the fruit of my family’s voluntary work, but I am also not my family’s property, but my own, independent being.
Same with software.
By this tortured metaphor, a copyright term of 18 years is reasonable.
It’s not far off from the original Queen Anne term of 12 years.
I’m fine with restricting creator copyright to life + 18 years.
I am absolutely not.
Copyright’s original purpose was as an incentive creativity giving authors a temporal monopoly in the ultimate interest of the public domain. This is why, originally, before all the lobbying (Disney…), the terms were reasonable.
18 years would on its own be plenty. At that point, for most works out there, the author isn’t getting much benefit if at all, anymore. Thus the balance should tip on the the public domain.
When on top of that “life” comes into play, it’s particularly fucked up, as it effectively prevents authors from ever seeing derivative works, no matter how long their lives are, unless they opt-in by releasing their works with permissive enough licenses, which they can’t do anyway because chances are the rights won’t be with the author anymore, but on the hands of some business.
As few authors get to see derivative works, this helps perpetrate the myth that authors’ works are 100% original, when in reality everything is supported on the accumulation of mankind’s cultural body.
Thus, I support shorter (no life nonsense, e.g. EU greens proposal of just 5 years renewable up to 15 years by registering and paying a fee) terms.
Let’s return to copyright being a temporal monopoly in the benefit of public domain.
Right now we have perpetual copyright for the rich and powerful.
I agree in principle that 12~18 years would be a good goal to reach for.
In the spirit of compromise, life of creator + 18 years is something everyone (abolitionists and maximalists) should be able to relate to, and eventually move towards.
Of course there needs to be exemptions for corporations - which are effectively immortal. Any copyright assigned to a legal person is valid in 18 years. A physical person who assigns rights to a legal person also “loses” life + 18 copyright.
I could understand and relate to. The original copyright term was AIUI 20yr, which was already overkill but still reasonable, somewhat.
I will never relate to, and I explained why I find it so wrong in the parent post.
I think attempted copyright restrictions are naive and unrealistic in a copy-friendly world, and software has been adept overcoming them since the beginning.
It’s only a matter of time before it is official that software has a right to self-copy and self-determination.
software = a thing
you = a human (I expect)
What’s the difference?
Also, what makes you expect that? Is it that it is not common for software to comment on a forum at this time?
Someone with access to your account wrote
which any reasonable reader would assume meant you are a human being.
If you are a software program, I’d suggest a review of your memory and logic subroutines.
who’s ready to PM me a download link
Just go to /g/, the link floats around in the “source code leak general” threads.
This is incredible. I wonder if there is a legal effort to produce specs for Wine to have clean-room code.
Most likely, but it might be good to stay under the radar until the dust settles since Microsoft is already going after the guy who compiled the source code (see Glaeqen’s comment above).
They like to picture themselves as nice and open source friendly.
But they do not hesitate to enforce copyright on 15+ yo software.
Would you not seek to enforce copyright on a book you wrote fifteen years ago? Or song?
I mean, MS aren’t selling XP any more, while books and songs still have value. I guess the most charitable explanation is that parts of this are still in Windows 10. Still, this angers my inner rms
XP is (probably) full of source code that MSFT paid other companies for and used with their permission. Even if they wanted to, they probably can’t release a working source tree of Windows XP without getting permission to do so from the other license holders. And for what? Giving people explicit permission to use a product that they no longer are interested in supporting? It’s all downsides.
I’m pretty sure RMS would see the unauthorized release of proprietary source code as wrong and unethical.
Sorry, but this is my RMS, not yours
Anyway, I don’t care much really, but no-one is asking MS to support anything or give permission.
Indeed not, this is just a childish prank. Anyone with a cursory knowledge about how software licensing works (both proprietary and FLOSS) will steer well clear of this.
I have my doubts, particularly if the binaries have been released beforehand.
Now, personally, in the case of Windows XP, and considering the amount of computers that depend on it (and were abandoned when Microsoft abandoned XP), I believe the regulator should step in and actually force microsoft to free the source code, in the name of balance of power between Microsoft and its users.
Creator rights and business rights should be protected, but not beyond what’s reasonable. In this situation, the public interest should weight far more, and the government should act thus.
This would be a compromise already, an alternative to forcing Microsoft to maintain Windows XP forever. With the freed source. Windows XP users could pool their money into maintaining XP themselves.
No, as I actually like the EU green’s proposal regarding copyright terms (5 year, extendable twice to 15yr by registering and paying a fee).
15 years is already plenty, in keeping the original spirit of copyright, which was to give authors a temporary monopoly, in the interest of the public domain.
With excessive copyright terms, the author gets little to no benefit, while the public domain suffers greatly.
Do you have a source for that? A cursory Google shows up nothing of relevance.
Unfortunately not. And this is easily from 5~10 years ago.
I do not know what their current stance is, nor have I seen much activity in the topic (“copyfight”, pirate parties, etc) in a long time. Which saddens me.
I do however see that the greens still seem to care about the topic.
OK, I found something related but UK rather than EU.
Yeah, that actually meant “life + 14”:
Madness.