Slashdot Mirror
GNU GPL law and "lagom" copyright
Johannes writes "Newsforge column on "lagom" copyright. I think we need to discuss these issues more. Maybe a GNU GPL law isn't so bad after all. As Pawlo states: "Would not a modern democratic society benefit from a plurality of irreconcilable and incompatible doctrines? We need the GNU GPL, but we also need proprietary software, Open Source software, BSD licenses, the Apache license and so forth. That would make the case for GNU GPL legislation void. However, as Lawrence Lessig taught us in his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, the code may in itself work against plurality.""
The same law governing software is no different than that governing books. Everyone is in agreement that the restrictions on books are acceptable terms, so the question should be,
"Why are software licenses more restrictive than books?"
If it was just a matter of lawyers saying 'Hey, we can put some more restrictions in place' them why did it not propogate back to books? Is it there because it's easier to get people to agree to? Perhaps software licenses are a matter of enforcibility.
My point? People are not asking the right questions. As the right questions and the answers are right around the corner.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
moderate (mdr-t) adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. To restrain from excess of any kind; to reduce from a state of violence, intensity, or excess; to keep within bounds; to make temperate; to lessen; to allay; to repress; to temper; to qualify; as, to moderate rage, action, desires, etc.; to moderate heat or wind.
3. Kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous; limited; restrained; as: (a) Limited in quantity; sparing; temperate; frugal; as, moderate in eating or drinking; a moderate table. (b) Limited in degree of activity, energy, or excitement; reasonable; calm; slow; as, moderate language; moderate endeavors. (c) Not extreme in opinion, in partisanship, and the like; as, a moderate Calvinist.
4. To become less violent, severe, rigorous, or intense; as, the wind has moderated.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The financial issues are called socialism, not Lagom. It's the same in the UK, but Thatcher fixed some of it. Working class folks still look at a lottery winner as a hero, but it you make a lot of money, especially if you're paid a lot, then you'll be treated like a criminal by some. Of course real criminals like Ronnie Biggs are treated like heroes. If you make it big your only hope is to try and fly a balloon around the world.
In America there's a culture of self improvement and more of a belief that if you have money chances are you earned it. The irony is that in the UK public education is generally better than the USA, but the culture holds some back. There's an entrepreneurial gestalt in most circles in the USA. There are exceptions and forces working against this, but it's America's greatest strength IMHO.
Until such time as the GPL is actually enforced, this kind of talk is nothing but a pointless ego-wank for people trying to impress us with how liberal and/or hip to the community they are.
On a small scale, codifying the GPL just takes the decision on that enforcement out of the hands of the people who produced the code in the first place and give it to an overworked legal system that most of us wouldn't trust as far we can throw it anyway.
On a larger scale, if ALL end-user code has to be open you adversely impact all sorts of things that you never considered in your knee-jerk reaction. Okay, so you might want Word opened so that we can get of these BS proprietary formats; or Outlook opened so the damn thing doesn't propogate infections faster than an open wound in the Black Hole of Calcutta. That's great, and there are real benefits there. Meanwhile though, online gaming goes into the shitter as every client instantly becomes 100% untrustworthy.
And what would it really help, as far as the GNU "ethic" goes? The same people that steal GPL'd code today would continue to do so: whether it's one guy and his pet project with a very limited audience (e.g. MQW) or a megacorp that loves the GPL for helping them cut development cost/time but doesn't go for "that hippy ideology" of actually returning the favour.
Scum will be scum no matter what you do with the laws. "Breaking" the GPL is already illegal, and it's not stopping them so far.
Seems to me that the only reason the utter drivel of the original article even gets a mention (and thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my life, BTW) is that those with an axe to grind about MS will get wood over the idea.
Can anyone provide a soundfile as to how "lagom" should be pronounced? It's one of those words that really fills a hole missing in the English Language, and I'd like to start using it :-)
According to Lessig there is no reason to ban or punish proprietary providers. But this view is hardly consistent with Lessig's view on the future of software copyright law. In Lessig's future system, proprietary providers are severely punished. They lose about 100 years of protection, the current copyright protection of life of author plus 70 year,s compared to five plus five years and then full disclosure.
I think the author misunderstands this. Taking away most of the term of the software copyright is not "punishing" proprietary providers, it continues to reward them for publishing closed code by giving them exclusive rights for ten years. It does reduce their *reward* to a much more reasonable term, since most software is pretty much useless after 10 years. Don't forget that this copyright term is a gift from the government to the author, not a fundamental right.
Meanwhile, those who publish Free Software get no rewards in today's system, and Lessig suggests that they should get some when he says that the government should "encourage" open source. "Encourage" means "reward" desired behavior.
Copyright is an entirely artificial right, constructed for social purposes, not one of those "inalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independance. It is, in fact, more reminiscent of the medieval system of "rights" where the term really meant privileges granted by the feudal system. For example, in many places in Europe the lord had a "right" to sleep with any bride before the husband got a go at her. These kinds of rights can change as society sees fit, according to what is deemed most beneficial.
Perhaps it is best that we reward artists and programmers for their work to provide them an incentive, but this is not a matter of fundamental morality. If you don't want your work copied you can keep it secret, but if you share it with others I see no innate, compelling reason why you should have the power to control how each person uses it should it fall into their hands. In fact, I *do* find it immoral that some should try to restrict use of their work or discoveries in a way that unduly restricts the work's benefit to society in the name of profiteering.
Furthermore, it's unfortunate that this article does not address patents, because even if proprietary sources are divulged ten years from the release of the code, they will remain useless to others if they implement still-active patents held by the author.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
The -om suffix in 'lagom' is actually an archaic dative ending, i.e. a grammatical construct that has nothing to do with the current word 'om' which, however, does mean 'around'.
There are a few remants of dative forms left in Swedish - 'lagom' and 'understundom' are the ones I can come up with right now.