15 Nov
2015
15 Nov
'15
11:31 a.m.
On 2015-11-15 20:01, Paul Koning wrote:
This is obviously the safest approach. However, it do limit what you can
use.
On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
There are a lot of diffent ways to approach copyright questions.
The first is to use only what is explicitly permitted. This is what Wikipedia and
gutenberg.org do. It is also what retrocomputing people who run public domain software
(like CDC COS or IBM OS/360 of the right vintage) or open source software do, or those who
obtain licenses, hobbyist or otherwise. ...
Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
fiction called "intellectual property", as a good-sounding experiment
that has failed. It is not producing the effects it was put in place
to produce and it is producing a lot of other, ill, effects.
Agree. I think the whole concept of intellectual property is weird. Calling some thought
in your head a "property" have strange implications. If I say some words that
makes you think of something, can I then make you violate my intellectual property? When
if you thought of the same idea independently? How did you violate my intellectual
property in that case?
Weird...
I think copyright law sortof makes more sense, and should be enough here. The second is to use what is readily available but
stop when told to. This is what google seems to do; it also seems to be the bitsavers
approach.
I think this can be acceptable, within some limits. For instance, making
money in such a case would definitely be going to far, in my book. Also,
establishing some kind of reputation, based on such sources would also
be something I would disagree with.
I don't know enough of bitsavers policy or approach to really comment.
But my understanding of Google is that they seem to lean on the fair use
clause a lot. Which means they do not publish full content, but only
smaller parts, and this is legally ok to do.
Now, this is just my understanding. I might be wrong in any number of
ways on this...
A third is to claim that it's in the public domain
if you can't find the owner, or even just because "it's on the
Internet". When I critiqued the "abandonware" approach, this is what I was
referring to. Note that there's a difference between "I know it's owned but
I can't find the owner, I'll use it until asked to stop" (approach 2) and
"I don't know the owner so I'll claim it doesn't have one" (approach
3).
Yeah, I get the feeling this is where some of the arguments here end up,
which also for me is an unacceptable conclusion.
Somewhat unrelated is the argument about whether there
should be copyright. If you disapprove of it, you're of course free to seek a
Constitutional amendment (in the USA case) to abolish it. But you would get objections
from anyone who makes his living writing books, or newspapers, or magazine articles. Also
from a lot of people whose profession is the creation of software. If you've ever
published anything, unless you released it into the public domain, you've used
copyright (intellectual property law). That includes open source licenses, of course.
I personally don't have a problem with copyright. I do have some issues
with "owning" ideas... :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol