Lessig always has interesting things to say in this area. Depending on one's vantage point, he is either slightly ahead of his time or an ego-maniacal academic gadfly. Either way, he clearly seeks to convince the judicial and legislative branches to scale back copyright dramatically. Many of his arguments are mostly convincing, but he's not an economist
( ... )
Most of the FOSS movement doesn't oppose copyrights (although FSF comes close), in fact it's copyright law that can be used to keep free software free (via the GPL &c
( ... )
Overall, I think your views are quite close to mine. I just think Lessig is oversimplifying and faux-utopian in this article, and this sensibility is also evident in some arguments made by the more radical FSF types. While some would scoff at the notion of having any interest in anything commercial, it's also naive to assume (and I've heard this argument made adamantly) that a gradual collaborative effort by the free software community would result in a better software application of any use to a non-programmer in any commercially useful timeframe. It might get there eventually, but that's hardly the same thing
( ... )
The article is for Technology Review ... so, I would expect some simplification :-)
While it is true that most free software projects don't get anywhere, I think the FOSS community has already proven that the open source process can produce software of equal or better quality than proprietary products, and in a reasonable timeframe (or, at minimum a *comparable* timeframe to closed-source proprietary products).
The FOSS community does not mean unpaid hackers in a basement or dorm room. Big corporations (IBM, for example) have paid employees working on software that they modify as part of the open source community! Their interests are profit-driven, and, in their cases, the collaborative model produces usable software with the features their customers want faster and cheaper than they could if they were working with another company or their own closed-source product (this is something along the lines of an Eric Raymond/OSI type argument).
As for the Supreme Court, I think that the case undermines the Constitutional argument,
( ... )
Well, I still don't think we disagree all that much :-) I did not mean to say that a collaborative effort pursued strategically can't work. On the contrary, I think inviting collaboration in the right context can be extremely savvy -- although I have worked with companies gravely concerned that while doing so they not inadvertently subject their limited proprietary "crown jewels" to the GPL or another open-source license.
Overall, I was responding to what I perceive to be fuzzy, naive arguments to the effect that collaborating basement and dorm-dwellers would typically be just as efficient working "li'shma," as it were. I think Lessig's article seeks to feed that myth.
On the issue of rights clearance, I think that strong arguments can be made that, in addition to fair use arguments under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, Section 117 already permits system maintenance, as long as the user already owns a licensed copy. Many software licenses include software escrow provisions with events like insolvency or dissolution entitling the
( ... )
It only "goes back to copyright" if the plaintiff establishes: (1) ownership of a valid copyright in the code at issue; and (2) that the copying/modification at issue was not authorized by a license agreement or otherwise; AND (3) the defendant fails to establish a valid defense, such as fair use or other statutory exemption (such as under Section 117).
All of this is easier said than done (as with any kind of litigation).
Also, the strongest defense argument regarding enforceability would be lack of affirmative assent, which more courts have been requiring lately to enforce "clickwrap" or "browsewrap" license terms. Note: affirmative assent can be accomplished by clicking an "I Agree" button.
What would be considered "affirmative assent" when the work in question is on a computer, readable, but not directly executable? The GPL primarily licenses how one may use and distribute source-code. You can't "click-wrap" source code, or, an e-book for that matter. So, wouldn't a copyright notice at the top of the file and the location of the copyright license be sufficient? That is where GPL notices are usually put.
For the sake of binaries compiled from GPL source code, I'm not sure how the --version, --copyright/--copyleft switch and/or the startup banner fit into all this; in a case of a GPL violation, the banner and copyright notice are usually removed.
Reply
Reply
Reply
While it is true that most free software projects don't get anywhere, I think the FOSS community has already proven that the open source process can produce software of equal or better quality than proprietary products, and in a reasonable timeframe (or, at minimum a *comparable* timeframe to closed-source proprietary products).
The FOSS community does not mean unpaid hackers in a basement or dorm room. Big corporations (IBM, for example) have paid employees working on software that they modify as part of the open source community! Their interests are profit-driven, and, in their cases, the collaborative model produces usable software with the features their customers want faster and cheaper than they could if they were working with another company or their own closed-source product (this is something along the lines of an Eric Raymond/OSI type argument).
As for the Supreme Court, I think that the case undermines the Constitutional argument, ( ... )
Reply
Overall, I was responding to what I perceive to be fuzzy, naive arguments to the effect that collaborating basement and dorm-dwellers would typically be just as efficient working "li'shma," as it were. I think Lessig's article seeks to feed that myth.
On the issue of rights clearance, I think that strong arguments can be made that, in addition to fair use arguments under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, Section 117 already permits system maintenance, as long as the user already owns a licensed copy. Many software licenses include software escrow provisions with events like insolvency or dissolution entitling the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
All of this is easier said than done (as with any kind of litigation).
Also, the strongest defense argument regarding enforceability would be lack of affirmative assent, which more courts have been requiring lately to enforce "clickwrap" or "browsewrap" license terms. Note: affirmative assent can be accomplished by clicking an "I Agree" button.
Reply
For the sake of binaries compiled from GPL source code, I'm not sure how the --version, --copyright/--copyleft switch and/or the startup banner fit into all this; in a case of a GPL violation, the banner and copyright notice are usually removed.
Reply
Leave a comment