[codgercoder]

GPL, and probably other licenses, were constructed to work with copyright law. Such cavalier dismissal (by rxrz) is disrespecting those who created the licenses, the legal system, and the open source community, at large. We live in the real world, not "The Matrix".

[yareally]

Sadly, this is a typical thing that goes on in the Android User development community. Lots of casual attitudes by hobbyists that modify the Linux Kernel and rattle off some sort of excuse for not posting their sources while distributing binary copies.

Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, thinking that because they changed a few lines of code, they can claim to own the license to the software now. I'd say that is probably much more prevalent since there's a general assumption by many that the license most Android based software uses, Apache 2.0 means "do whatever you want".

Even worse is the fact that many users in the community are also quick to defend them blindly because they know little of development and why following licenses matter (even after all the facts are laid out and explained).

[jlgreco]

The last point you raise is one of the reasons that I think the drive to bring as many "proverbial grandmothers" to Linux presents a very serious concern.

Imagine if Linux distros started getting treated like Android does? Android got those legions of "regular" users and participants that everybody seems to want and it is not a pretty scene because of it.

[yareally]

Great point. I've had more than one conversation with friends in the Android community where we try to understand exactly why the Android development community is as toxic as it is at times.

Part of it definitely has to do with the end users getting too close to those doing the development and the result is chaos. It ends with users totally disrespecting real developers--stirring up unnecessary drama and fanboyism. Then there's users that compiled Android (or worse, added a few apps into a ROM by opening it in 7zip) and are suddenly an Android development expert (and users that believe it by defending them and donating money).

I'm just glad that most other development communities on the web are much more civil (though I'm sure there's outliers). Even with Ubuntu's rise in popularity, it comes nowhere close to matching the appalling behavior I've witnessed with Android. I've seen people belittled by users for simply trying to post an honest bug report to a developer in their forum thread. Though with the way users spam up those threads with offtopic discussion, one is just as likely to have their bug report missed/ignored.

[pnathan]

> Part of it definitely has to do with the end users getting too close to those doing the development and the result is chaos.

I don't understand what you mean. Shouldn't a close relationship between developers and users be a key goal in development?

[jevinskie]

I think the point is that the relationship isn't getting useful work done. In a ROM thread on XDA developers there are no good bug reports with reproductions, expected results, etc. It is a bunch of people saying "this doesn't work" and "no of course it should work for you because it works on my phone" and especially off-the-cuff performance evaluations ("much smoother, no stuttering or lag"). It is difficult to figure out who knows their shit and who is just bullshitting.

[Svip]

> Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, [...]

Hmmm...

https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-2... :

> And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl.

Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.

[vog]

Among all aspects of that discussion, the author's gender is about the most uninteresting detail. "Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position."

[yareally]

Agreed. I didn't even take the time to find out what their gender was since it's not any related issue. "Guy" was just used in a generic sense[1].

[1] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-s...

[Svip]

I apologise, I am not familiar enough with the usage of 'guy' to know it is generic in singular (I know it is in plural).

[yareally]

No worries :). I just think of it as another way of saying "dude".

[skore]

> Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.

Nah, pretty sure the "I'm a big girl" is just fratboy posturing.

Otherwise I agree with the commenter next to me: Breathtaking inanity is the interesting aspect here, not gender.

[dbaupp]

> I'm a big girl

I believe the key part of this is the "I'm a big X" pattern (i.e. "I'm an adult"), not that the person is female.

[toble]

It's only natural to act defensively when someone abruptly turns up and accuses you of removing some comments from code.

If you talk to people who aren't licensing and legal enthusiasts, most don't have an interest in those topics.

[scotty79]

What's wrong with disrespecting those who created the licenses, and the legal system? Maybe if we were disrespecting them sufficiently early on we wouldn't be in a mess we are currently in and the open source community wouldn't need to have a special name because it would be just called developer community?

> We live in the real world, not "The Matrix". So why does it feel like it's the other way around? Why does it feel like we are living in a world pull over by our eyes by lawers that restricts sharing our creativity?

[read_again]

Property is an inherent human thing. Likewise, people want to be remunerated for their work. Hence copyright. If scarcity was non existent, then we wouldn't have that problem...

Actually, it would still be here: Van Gogh artwork is unique, and this can be expanded virtually to anything, including the shirt you are wearing, since you're the only one to wear it. You might see where this leads to. Scarcity can always be created artificially.

Anyway, you wouldn't want people to take your shirts away from you, and copyright holders may feel the same towards their work.

The second issue is fairness: if someone has to pay a certain amount to access copyrighted work, why others would not have to, under the same circumstances? Fairness is the motivating principle supporting the existence of the Law.

[scotty79]

And then there's science. People are paid to work on things or do it because they want to do it. Once they do something valuable they publish it and everyone can build upon their work.

Openness gave us modern world. Copyright gave us Hollywood and Sony Music.

Property is inherent thing. Not only human. Monkeys also want to own things and they don't like thieves. But extending physical property qualities to creations of human mind is just something some rich people did to get richer.

[read_again]

> some rich people did to get richer

As I said, it all comes from scarcity. Things that are abundant are monetary worthless, and if everything is free, then people don't need to make money, ergo no copyright anymore (there's a slight simplification here actually, because copyrights also grant control, which is actively thought). That said, while the system is mostly used by the richest, poor people can profit from it as well, if they manage to produce valuable IP.

The problem that we really have here imho is that code is just logic written in an often clever way, like a math theorem. Do we want to have these things protected by copyrights or patents? Does it make sense? That's the real question behind the issue at hand I believe.

[scotty79]

Copyright is creating artificial scarcity for copies and using price abnormally elevated by this scarcity to finance art makers (in theory) and scarcity creators (in practice).

Same way I could create scarcity on your oxygen supply and use artificially elevated oxygen price to finance myself and my efforts to create and uphold this scarcity and also finance cute puppies to mask what horrible thing I am actually doing.

Patenting and copyright clearly doesn't make any sense. It's just a tool for creating revenue stream by holding information and commercial freedom hostage. There are much less harmful ways to create revenue streams.

[bxc89]

There are those of us who completely disagree with copyright law. How many years have been wasted on projects like Samba because of draconian copyright? Much simpler and cleaner to acquire the source.

[reginaldjcooper]

Wasting man-years on reimplementing software is not a large enough problem to decide that authors no longer have any rights with their product.

[ouaibe]

Contrary to popular belief, copyright law doesn't exist to ascertain dominion from an author onto it's creation. It exists to regulate exchanges and distribution of such creation, giving a controlled and finite monopoly to the original author with a guarantee that said creation ends up in the public domain. GPL exists to bypass such monopoly and implement a form of public domain (copyleft) that is compatible with copyright law.

[serf]

but it is a large enough problem.

Wasting man years is precisely the problem. Our collective knowledge is boundless, but time is finite. See the problem here? Why would we want to waste the effort of future generations with the problems of yesterday?

So that an individual can live more comfortably with exclusive privileges to something that benefits all of mankind? We shouldn't be working towards selfishness and arbitrary contractual law.

[icebraining]

Agreed, there are much better reasons for doing so.

[bradleyjg]

If you disagree with it, you are free not to copyright your own works.

[phaemon]

That's like saying if you disagree with slavery, you're free not to own slaves.

Copyright places a restriction on what I can do with information I legally have in my possession. It is a restriction on my freedom of expression. You might argue that the restriction is worth it in order to encourage artists, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

[bradleyjg]

It's awfully convenient that this fundamental right you are positing allows you to use other's work without doing anything at all yourself.

Like so many unrealistic libertarian positions the grandparent demands the fruits of civilization while rejecting the very rules that made them possible.

There exists even to this day places where you can freely live in something very much like a state of nature, where life continues to be nasty, brutish, and short but you have maximal FREEDOM!

[phaemon]

I didn't posit the right to freedom of expression. It's been around a long time. And I don't pirate anything, and do produce work that would qualify for copyright, so how is it convenient for me?

As for your second point: I should support bad laws because otherwise I must be supporting anarchy? Is that seriously your argument? Perhaps you should give it more thought...

[bradleyjg]

The original post in this thread wasn't talking about supporting or not supporting bad laws, he was talking about ignoring them ("much simpler and cleaner to acquire the source"). Ignoring laws because you disagree with them is anarchy.

Also while applications of copyright impact freedom of expression (i.e. The Wind Done Gone, there are plenty that don't. There's nothing expressive about pirating software, and very little expressive in redistributing unmodified or barely modified proprietary software.

[reginaldjcooper]

First of all, it's completely ridiculous to compare copyright with slavery.

You were never going to express yourself in exactly that manner, so from a practical standpoint copyright isn't preventing you from doing anything at all. It's a good compromise; how else do we prevent publishers and software companies from grabbing up indie work and selling it without compensating the creator? I don't understand being totally against copyright.

The area where it's going wrong is that Disney and the labels have big interests in extending copyright to ridiculous lengths and strengthening it to the extent that it's an anchor dragging behind any startup that wants to compete in that industry. We should be able to share movies and books with our friends and families. In their perfect world, every viewer would pay a fee for every viewing.

[phaemon]

> First of all, it's completely ridiculous to compare copyright with slavery.

An analogy is not an equivalence. Please learn the difference.

From a practical viewpoint, copyright constrains what I can do with information, and you even admit it's a compromise yourself! I don't accept it's a good compromise. I'd prefer to do without than accept it. I acknowledge that most people (such as yourself) feel differently.

[reginaldjcooper]

> An analogy is not an equivalence. Please learn the difference.

It's an appeal to emotion by comparing it with something so different it barely makes sense, if you prefer to argue from emotion instead of reason, then by all means. Preventing you from emailing a .pdf or .mp3 is nothing like taking away all your basic human rights, treating you like you are subhuman, and forcing you to labor in the fields.

What rights should an author have with their work, then? When have you wanted to, but were unable to, share information that wasn't just "I want it for free"?

EDIT: Reflecting on it, this sounds confrontational, but I genuinely wish to know how copyright is impacting you. I hate all the patent trolls, I hate the patent system, I hate copyright trolls, so maybe I hate the copyright system as well, and just don't know yet.