Abolish copyright, and HP would have no need to do this. Without copyright, SCO's case against Linux users completely dries up. There may be a contract dispute, but that would only be between IBM and SCO. Actual linux users, who signed no contract, would be fine.
We don't know what this hypothetical post-copyright world would be. I think that it will put companies completely out of the information business. There would be no law forcing anyone to reveal their source, but people would just do it anyway.
If there were no copyright, the whole business model of limiting each copy is gone. One reason source is closed is because revealing it would negate any copy protection.
I have no problem with the GPL because it uses copyright to introduce the mindset that information should be shared. Once copyright is abolished, it's no longer needed and has done its job.
Why would anyone want to close the source if there is no copyright anyway? The GPL would be unnecessary once the copyright based business model is gone. The law is there now, so you might as well use it even if you want it abolished.
Just practicalities here. It's easier to change something that not everyone uses (yes, there are those who have not used a computer), and is much newer.
I created that analogy with "intellectual property" and slavery. People say abolishing "intellectual property" is drastic...so was abolishing slavery.
I'll be sending my invoice for your unlicensed use of my idea!
Since when did we need the government to do open source. Why should anyone want to enforce a requirement that source be distributed? There doesn't need to be any enforcement anywhere. You'll get your software from trusted sources that voluntarily give the source code. Government has nothing to do with it.
Yes, I'm libertarian, but I think the whole communist as bait thing gets old. Throwing it back at them doesn't do much good. The issues are not the same because we're talking physical property versus "intellectual property".
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody would force anything. Those who want to release source will. Those who don't, won't. But those who don't might be ignored.
Abolish copyright, and HP would have no need to do this. Without copyright, SCO's case against Linux users completely dries up. There may be a contract dispute, but that would only be between IBM and SCO. Actual linux users, who signed no contract, would be fine.
Copyright should be abolished because it is unnatural. It would also happen to prevent this particular from suit from ever happening.
We don't know what this hypothetical post-copyright world would be. I think that it will put companies completely out of the information business. There would be no law forcing anyone to reveal their source, but people would just do it anyway.
If there were no copyright, the whole business model of limiting each copy is gone. One reason source is closed is because revealing it would negate any copy protection. I have no problem with the GPL because it uses copyright to introduce the mindset that information should be shared. Once copyright is abolished, it's no longer needed and has done its job.
Why would anyone want to close the source if there is no copyright anyway? The GPL would be unnecessary once the copyright based business model is gone. The law is there now, so you might as well use it even if you want it abolished.
To be exact, contracts would still be in force. So someone who signed to keep the code secret could still be sued.
Indefensible position...attack the person. Like day follows night.
You wouldn't need the various open source licenses. Open source would do just fine...no licenses at all.
If the RIAA had no grounds for suing anyone, then there would be no mix ups.
Once GPS becames much more universal, it would be great for us all to move to latitude and longitude. That's a truly international standard.
Just practicalities here. It's easier to change something that not everyone uses (yes, there are those who have not used a computer), and is much newer.
Plain alphabetical order is better than a poorly designed layout that sticks around because most people are afraid of change.
Or maybe Rambus is already fixing to sue them.
Ah, I see you are insane. I was reading a flame in a USA Today editorial page by the RIAA head. That sounded insane too.
I created that analogy with "intellectual property" and slavery. People say abolishing "intellectual property" is drastic...so was abolishing slavery. I'll be sending my invoice for your unlicensed use of my idea!
Since when did we need the government to do open source. Why should anyone want to enforce a requirement that source be distributed? There doesn't need to be any enforcement anywhere. You'll get your software from trusted sources that voluntarily give the source code. Government has nothing to do with it.
I'm not the only one who thinks of this as the new slavery.
One stupid enough to equate intellectual property with real property will also use the word "utopia" as an insult. Makes sense.
Abolishing that sure created more problems than it solved.
Slavery. Compromisers.
Yes, I'm libertarian, but I think the whole communist as bait thing gets old. Throwing it back at them doesn't do much good. The issues are not the same because we're talking physical property versus "intellectual property".
A coward you are not!
I use it purposely to show that it makes no sense putting those words together. In quotes so I am mocking it.
The conservative/liberal angle? How original! On to next message--this one clearly lacks no insight.