The GPL is against any kind of private property concept. >inb4

>>60178230
Intangible property isn't property at all. The GPL is just a hack to work around the boneheaded and backwards concept known as copyright.

If you don't want anyone else using your ideas, don't tell them to anyone else.

>>60178314
As I said it's not about ideas but actual work done using that idea as a base to achieve a goal (algorithms, software design, etc are all ideas but the implementation, time consumed, testing are scarce)

>>60178402
I don't think anyone disputes that you can charge for your labor. It's just that there's no reason you should retain control of the results of it after its completed, because the thing you created isn't scarce. A mathematician can calculate pi, expending labor in the process, and he might do that on a work-for-hire basis on the payment of someone who wants to know what pi is, but neither he nor his employer (if any) then gets ownership of the combination of digits "3.14159..."

>>60178478
He paid the mathematician to calculate pi with a given precision, therefore it's his property, meaning he can decide whether or not he releases it to the public.

>>60178230
>I don't have to give it away if I don't desire so.
Then don't. Keep your program to yourself. Run it yourself and reap its benefits yourself.

>>60178736
The anti-GPL crowd often forgets that there's nothing in the license that says you have to distribute anything. You only have obligations under the GPL if you choose to distribute.

>>60178701
>to release it to the public
And once he does, he id forfeiting whatever right he had to it

>>60178701
>meaning he can decide whether or not he releases it to the public.

This is true. Anyone can decide what they want to say in public or not say. The GPL and free software are not against this concept. GPL says nothing about forcing you to make anything public.

>therefore it's his property

This is where you get into dangerous territory, and it's also legally spurious, at least in the US. If you say "this number is my property" and then go around telling people that number, while at the same trying to coerce people into not repeating the number to anyone else, you are intentionally restricting what those other people can and can't say in public. So in the worst case, even if knowing that number caused them to make another discovery that was really awesome but yet unrelated to what you're doing, they wouldn't be able to publish it because you restricted their speech.

It's also likely you wouldn't own the number even if it were possible to do something like that. Mathematicians have rights, they could just refuse to appropriate their discoveries to you, on the grounds that it is anti-capitalistic, against progress, and against academia. Highly secretive societies have a huge weakness in that there is tons of duplication of effort and no way for anyone to know what's been done before.

File: tmp_14282-1490192233015-144617579.jpg (123KB, 400x450px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 400x450px

>>60178904
This guy doesn't know about illegal primes
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

>>60178760
Yeah well the pro-GPL crowd often forget that when you fork GPL code that the original code is still there and the modifications made are from a person who should have the right to protect their own work.

The GPL Defence Force are as bad as the anti-"piracy": They try make it sound like something has been stolen when in fact the original copy is still there.

File: tmp_14282-1493050324772-1549648099.jpg (156KB, 430x720px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 430x720px

>>60179219
If you distribute the modification then you need to provide the modified source, else that modified software is infringing their freedoms, which is in turn against the GPL.

the man doesn't believe passwords should have existed in the early days, he told everyone that did the timeshares with him to set their password to blank.

>>60179219
The GPL relies upon that ownership concept, actually. The author is saying "It's my right to decide how my creation is used. I'll let you use it, for any purpose, so long as you agree to release under the same terms anything you create from it"

Essentially, the owners are telling you that what you want to do (take their work and make it proprietary, wanting to do that is the only reason someone would object to the GPL) is something they're not prepared to license you to do with their property.

>>60178314
The thing here is that you should be allowed on protecting your code (by your terms) and selling your work.

How can a lincense, which restricts alot of real freedoms be considered 'free'?

>>60178230
Correct, but if someone buys your product, under first-sale doctrine, it becomes their property, and you shouldn't be able to sue them for taking it apart, learning how it works, and modifying it.

>>60178230
no one is forcing you to release "your work" (i doubt you ever produced something of value) under GPL, so why do you care ?
most of my work is BSD and i don't give a shit about who's copying my code because i already got paid to write it
it's fun to find out some companies/products are using your code though.

>>60178230
>The GPL is against any kind of private property concept.
It's simple and easy: You're wrong.

>>60179520
He can (not legally tho), I would change the law to decriminalize software piracy. The industry should carry that weight, of protecting their code, not the law

> is against any kind of private property concept.
true. but its even simpler. its anti freedom since it wants to force you not to distribute compiled software.

>>60179316
That was a different situation back in the days. They had a class and one computer and waiting for a password here comes just in your way of being productive. These passwords weren't for protecting private things, but for control who and when someone could work on the computer.

>>60179555
/thread

>>60179430
>>60179476
Why do you think you should have the freedom to take the freedom of others?

>>60179807
You realise that argument can be used in both directions, right?

>>60179867
I have the freedom to give others freedom because I can choose to licence my software under a free license.

>>60179976
You are infringing on my freedom to with that code whatever i want using the GPL license

>I don't want to be social
Then fine, don't release your work. You only have to give your assets to the public if you release a binary.

Be glad you're not sticking with any Affero stuff.

>>60178230
That's not true. The GPL does not provide the right to infringe against registered trademarks.

https://wptavern.com/the-gpl-license-doesnt-provide-the-freedom-to-infringe-registered-trademarks

What's the problem? If you want to keep your software proprietary then don't use anything to write your programs from GPL or similar licenses.

>>60178230
Then don't publish your GPL bound software? What's the problem here?

>The GPL is against any kind of private property concept.
Duh. GPL is a communist license.

File: 1417981468317.jpg (904KB, 1293x2911px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 1293x2911px

>>60178230
GPL is communism.

>>60179219
You can keep your modifications to yourself if you don't release the software to the public. How are you not getting this?

>>60178230
copyrights and patents are not private property. i mean this literally; copyright law, patent law, and property law are all distinct frameworks in both US and EU law

in the US, the legal and philosophical basis for copyrights and patents is economic stimulus. this is why there are fair use exemptions where the monopoly right clearly conflicts with the economic value of e.g. product reviews. in the EU the philosophical basis for copyright law is an artist's moral rights to personal expression.

in neither case is copyright law in any way derived from Lockean property theory, i.e. "the work involved in creating something justifies my ownership of it." this is because Lockean theory *explicitly relies on scarcity* for its argument.

so when copyright detractors point out that there's no scarcity, and therefore property analogies don't apply, they mean this in a quite formal way both philosophically and legally.

the burden is really, really on you to prove why the fuck "intellectual property" is real, because this hasn't been done for you and is not a normative assumption unless you've bought the RIAA's advertising campaigns hook, line, and sinker

>>60180955
>>60180985
>rejecting a state-enforced economic monopoly is communism
fucking cucks

File: wayne-brady.jpg (6KB, 199x253px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 199x253px

>>60180985
Actually the GPL propagates capitalism by preventing monopolies on software and helping competition bloom.

>>60178230
If someone wants to copy my property and make modifications to their own property then they can be my guest.

>>60178230
Private property is unethical when it creates artificial scarcity and inefficiency of usage. If you put effort into making something, but then work to prevent it from being used efficiently, you are wasting labor.

>>60180034
Anything that the GPL forbids you from doing is infringing on the freedom of others.

File: brain.jpg (39KB, 600x367px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x367px

>>60182037
>>60180985
>Capitalism synergizes with communism

>>60184732
>im an ice fire mage
>nah i can dps fuck off

>The GPL is against any kind of private property concept.
Well yeah, private property IS bad...

>I own the fruits of my work, I don't have to give it away if I don't desire so.
If you hoard too much, benefit too much by exploiting others, hopefully people will come and force you to give at least some of it to others. I don't see why this is so hard.

In the case of software, I guess the ideal would nonetheless have to be widespread adoption of free software so that no one "has" to use proprietary software. Your shitty proprietary thing could simply sit unused, then. However, maybe some really widespread software would be good to forcibly "nationalise".

File: stirner.jpg (50KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 613x771px

>>60178230
>This fucking thread

>>60178314
Yes it is.
By purchasing intellectual property from someone, the seller can put a contractual obligation that you not redistribute.
A violation of this contract is a violation of the NAP. Hence we have de facto intellectual property without state intervention.
Similar to physical property, one has the right to protect their intellectual property with force should there be a contractual violation.

>>60187816
But what if I want it for free?

MIT and BSD are much better than GPL
True freedom, rather than weaponized autism

>>60191310
>True freedom
Can I take a BSD-licensed program, change absolutely nothing sans removing the credit and copyright notice, and pass it off as my own? Why is that the line drawn? Shouldn't permissive licensing give everyone freedom, even plagiarists, like their zealots claim?

>>60191373
That would be public domain

>>60191386
Public domain, which is therefor True Freedom™, as opposed to restrictive BSD licensing.

>>60191404
BSD is nearly public domain, with the exception that it requires attribution
You're correct tho

>>60191503
Don't call it "true freedom" if it has restrictions tho, bro

>>60191534
An artist has a transcendent right to be credited for his work
Programming is no different
This, BSD style licenses are the most free without violating that right

>>60191553
>subjective claims

>>60191570
not an argument

>>60191553
>An artist has a transcendent right to be credited for his work
Even if that were the case, BSD licenses don't guarantee that outside the case of binary/source redistribution. If someone compiles a binary themselves, they can distribute it without giving credit, thus allowing people to violate this supposed transcendent right.