[bumby]

This is strange logic that ignores the idea of copyright. Just because I allow you to view my work for free does not mean I relinquish copyright protection. If I write a song that I perform for free, it doesn’t give you license to record and sell that song, for example.

[meiraleal]

> This is strange logic that ignores the idea of copyright

What is strange in ignoring the idea of copyright? If you write a song and I can play it in my computer, I use it the way I want in my computer. If you don't want that, don't make your work public. Copyright is a men's creation, nobody is forced to respect it.

The code I develop can be accessed for free in github and even in the browser "view source", I won't be fighting for other people to have the right to force others to pay for using their creation while they don't pay for mine and all other open source and open science creations.

[bumby]

>nobody is forced to respect it

I was afraid the discussion would go this route.

Yes, copyright is a convention. It’s subject to change. However, IP protections are written into the US Constitution and the bar to change it is relatively high.

Murder is also a crime by convention, there’s no natural law against it. But we generally recognize that to live in a stable society, we must live by certain conventions.

You can play a song on your computer because that is considered appropriate use. You selling tickets to play it, or to copy it and sell it is not because they conceivably limit the authors ability to make money from their creation.

You may not realize it but software is also covered by copyright. For most intents and purposes, it’s considered the worlds worst book; you cannot legally copy and sell it if the license doesn’t allow it.

Edit: added the word "legally" to be more precise

[meiraleal]

> you cannot copy and sell it if the license doesn’t allow it.

Well, good luck trying to force me to not sell your work in my country.