[icebraining]

If you believe in open source, then you need to be respectful of copyright law. It is the foundation for open source licensing.

I don't see how that follows. I support open source, that is, the free distribution of software code. Open source licensing is just a necessary evil to account for the fact that copyright is anti-open-source by default. A few decades back, when the US and other countries required registration to copyright works, open source licensing would have been a ridiculous suggestion (except for copyleft licenses), even though open source itself would still make perfect sense.

[pb2au]

It depends on your meaning behind "free distribution", but arguably most open source licenses don't exist to provide that specifically -- they exist to permit it while abiding by the other conditions on the license.

For example, if you don't respect copyright law, you wouldn't be able to argue that a corporation taking GPLed code and incorporating it into a proprietary product is immoral nor taking BSD licensed code and removing a link back to the original author is immoral.

[icebraining]

For example, if you don't respect copyright law, you wouldn't be able to argue that a corporation taking GPLed code and incorporating it into a proprietary product is immoral nor taking BSD licensed code and removing a link back to the original author is immoral.

No, I just can't argue that on the grounds that people should have a right to prevent others from copying their work. I can still defend it without incoherence on other grounds. Just because in some jurisdictions you have to use copyright to defend those rights, that doesn't make those rights dependent on accepting copyright.

For example, here in civil law countries, there's commonly no "copyright" as such; there's Moral Rights (which protect stuff like attribution) and Economic Rights. Therefore, there's no implication that abolishing Economic Rights like restricting others from copying must also abolish attribution rights.

Essentially, the attribution right is the goal, and copyright is just a method that can be used to achieve that goal. There's no incoherence in defending the goal without supporting this method of achieving it.

And that applies to the GPL as well - I can defend the right to prevent others from using your code in closed binaries, without having to defend the wider right of prevent any copying at all. (Though in my particular case, I wouldn't mind losing copyleft if copyright was to be abolished)

[pb2au]

For example, here in civil law countries, there's commonly no "copyright" as such; there's Moral Rights (which protect stuff like attribution) and Economic Rights. Therefore, there's no implication that abolishing Economic Rights like restricting others from copying must also abolish attribution rights

You're correct that moral and property rights are distinct in many civil law countries, but both are under the umbrella of copyright and, as far as I know, there are no countries that enforce moral rights but not property rights. I'm aware that there are countries that do the reverse: acknowledge property rights but not moral rights. Which countries' legal systems do you have in mind?

And that applies to the GPL as well - I can defend the right to prevent others from using your code in closed binaries, without having to defend the wider right of prevent any copying at all. (Though in my particular case, I wouldn't mind losing copyleft if copyright was to be abolished)

According to the idea that we should not respect property rights (and, like you say, only respect attribution / moral rights), this would allow the company to re-license GPL code under an MIT license, then use the newly MIT-licensed code in ways that were unintended according to the original author (i.e. inclusion in non-GPLed code). Like you mention, this could be in the form of closed-source binaries, which of course could be reverse engineered legally, because of no property rights, but, really, this system seems terrible to me.

While I love open source software and acknowledge that copyright can be abused, I can't see the benefit of a system that permits you to take the work of someone else, ignoring their conditions, then modify and re-distribute it as if it were under something similar to an MIT license -- respecting only attribution.

[icebraining]

You're correct that moral and property rights are distinct in many civil law countries, but both are under the umbrella of copyright

No. Copyright can be used to protect moral rights, since you can't mis-attribute something you can't copy, but that's only done so in the US because there's no federal law defining moral rights. In places where moral rights are in the law, they are not subject to copyright at all. You can even sell or forfeit the copyright, and you'll still have the attribution rights (which are inalienable).

as far as I know, there are no countries that enforce moral rights but not property rights. (...) Which countries' legal systems do you have in mind?

It doesn't matter. My point was that attribution and other moral rights don't rely on accepting copyright. Whether there are legal systems without copyright is irrelevant to this.

According to the idea that we should not respect property rights (and, like you say, only respect attribution / moral rights), this would allow the company to re-license GPL code under an MIT license, then use the newly MIT-licensed code in ways that were unintended according to the original author (i.e. inclusion in non-GPLed code).

What licenses would those be, if there's no copyright? You're still thinking in a matter formatted by the current US law.

Just because in this hypothetical world copyright has been abolished, doesn't mean you necessarily can do what you suggest. As I said earlier, a law could be promulgated that granted the author the right only to prevent others from using code written by him in proprietary binaries - while not granting him/her the right to restrict any other copying.

My only point is that you don't have to accept & respect copyright - the right to prevent others from almost any copying - to defend other rights. They aren't dependent on copyright; that just happens to be, under current US law, the best way to protect them.

[pb2au]

Hi again,

No. Copyright can be used to protect moral rights, [...]. In places where moral rights are in the law, they are not subject to copyright at all.

It doesn't matter. [...] Whether there are legal systems without copyright is irrelevant to this.

Sorry, I think we are just disagreeing on the definition of copyright here. I use the definition that moral rights are under the umbrella of copyright. For example, Wikipedia defines moral rights as "rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions" [1]. You could have moral rights without property rights, but not without copyright. And, again, I don't think there are any countries that actually have moral rights without property rights, which I do consider important for discussing the claim that respecting property rights is unnecessary.

What licenses would those be, if there's no copyright? You're still thinking in a matter formatted by the current US law.

You claimed that moral rights were important, but property rights were not (or maybe I've misunderstood). The MIT license is generally protective of moral rights (attribution), while the GPL protects both moral rights and property rights (attribution and "you may use the code under these conditions"). By saying moral rights are only important, it's the same as saying any GPL code could be re-licensed under the MIT license. So the situation I mentioned was using previously GPLed code in a closed-source binary, because the company does not respect the copyright (property rights) of the author, even if they keep the attribution (moral rights).

The original topic discussed was: "If you believe in open source, then you need to be respectful of copyright law. It is the foundation for open source licensing."

Which I think is made clear by the example. By nobody respecting property rights, closed-source binaries could use GPLed code, with the stipulation that the binaries themselves can be reverse engineered legally. It isn't a good trade-off. The binaries are no longer proprietary (i.e. have ownership rights), but are still very hard to use.

As I said earlier, a law could be promulgated that granted the author the right only to prevent others from using code written by him in proprietary binaries - while not granting him/her the right to restrict any other copying.

This itself sounds like a copyright law that grants certain property rights to the author. Earlier you mentioned abolishing "economic rights" and stated "essentially, the attribution right is the goal". But, as it turns out, some property rights are liked ("I made this, so I want to release it under X condition!"), so if you expect others to respect your terms, it is important to respect theirs, imo.

That's why I consider respecting copyright to be important for open source -- to me it seems like the "golden rule" of authoring code; if I want my GPL code to be protected, I should respect the license of their proprietary code.

I don't have any more time for the discussion, but I think I've expressed my view the best I can.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights