681
Debian developer Antoine Le Gonidec resigns after option allowing corporate LLM use without disclosure wins vote (lists.debian.org)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
349 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

You're conflating open source and free software with public domain. Open source software licenses are completely dependent on software copyright. This means that if software copyright were eliminated, open source licenses would become completely unenforceable. We may be headed in this direction anyway, but I just thought I would make the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    It has been wild to see Linux users hope that the GPL is rendered unenforceable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Why? The entire purpose of GPL is to counteract copyright. If there is no copyright we no longer need GPL either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (2 children)

    The GPL gives you the right to access and modify the source code of software you use. A lack of copyrights does not mean that the creators have to share the source code with you. In fact, it means that anyone can take GPL software and turn it into closed source software

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    Sure but that's mostly irrelevant in practice now. Gpl was notoriously unenforced so this aspect of "getting source code" almost never yielded to much in practice. FSF did a great job with limited resources it has but as code copyright is basically gone now and reverse engineering is so accessible we can actually empower real free software that is fully transparent and verifiable. If you imply that somehow we'll start regressing existing tools to proprietary software I don't see that at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Copyleft exists only because of copyright. If there is no copyright there's no longer a need for copyleft.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    I completely disagree. What's the main thing the GPL does that is different from public domain or the complete absence of copyright?

    It restricts how the code can be used in order to protect the writers and the consumers of the code. Without copyright and copyleft, any company can use any GPL code in any proprietary product they want, without sharing any of their changes and without even crediting the original writers. As an example, Microsoft could adopt the Linux kernel for Windows, heavily modify it, sell it, and stay completely silent about it, without any consequences. That's what a world without copyright means for copyleft.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    Sure but again this is only a problem if copyright exists. Stallman himself invented GPL due to frustrations of copyright. The permisiveness is default human behavior that was corrupted by evil people and terrible systems. The neutrrance of copyright just returns us to this default state of sharing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago*

    That's not true at all. Like I said, copyleft relies completely on copyright. It was not at all created in opposition to copyright. It was created in opposition to proprietary (i.e., "unfree") software. Here, from the Wikipedia article on Copyleft (emphasis mine):

    The concept of copyleft was described in Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto in 1985, where he wrote:[6]

    GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

    This is impossible to do without copyright existing. Like I mentioned before, without copyright laws, companies can take any code they wish, with any license, and use it in their proprietary software without sharing their modifications.

    Another reference directly from the FSF: "Copyleft is a tool that works within copyright law" (emphasis mine)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent