[okfn-discuss] CC and copyright reform

[Rob Myers]

On 30/10/13 12:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> Copyleft is a hack to
> workaround problems, not something inherently requiring copyright.

Copyleft is inherently a reversal of copyright, in practice and by name.

But as you argue below, in its absence some other mechanism to compel
disclosure of source code is required. I find economic arguments to the
contrary unconvincing.

This is possible without new laws. The ODbL is an example of a
sharealike that is built on more than copyright and tries to cope with
the absence of rights.

The ODbL shows both the strengths and the limitations of such an approach.

> Obviously there are issues with just axing some law with no further
> consideration. The full solution involves eliminating copyright while
> adding laws prohibiting DRM and requiring open-source for all
> publications. There would then be no need for copyleft. What we want
> isn't for individuals to choose to be copyleft, what we want is to get
> rid of proprietary restrictions, so the real answer, if we talk ideals,
> is to just ban the restrictions and mechanisms that lead to them.

I agree that it's important to pursue the ideal of freedom rather than
get tangled up in specific expressions of opposition to it. UNIX was a
trade secret prior to software being copyrightable in the US, for example.

Here's some rms:

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/07/could-free-software-exist-without-copyright/index.htm

"I would be glad to see the abolition of copyright on software if it
were done in such a way as to ensure that software is free. After all,
the point of copyleft is to achieve that goal for derivatives of certain
programs. If all software were free, copyleft would not be needed for
software.

However, abolishing copyright could also be done in a misguided way that
would have no effect on typical proprietary software (which is
restricted by EULAs and source code secrecy rather than copyright), and
only undermines the practice of copyleft. Naturally I would be against that.

In other words, I am more concerned with how the law affects users'
freedom than with what happens to copyright as such."