Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] [Linux/OSS] Op-Ed: Free/Open Source Software Does Not Need Copyrights

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote
on Tue, 08 May 2007 13:46:21 +0100
<3522612.vyOPmkTGms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Supporting Open Source While Opposing Copyright
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Indeed, the GPL today doesn't really prohibit people from copying,
> | it merely imposes certain requirements on those who make and
> | distribute derivative works. If you just want to copy and use a
> | GPL'd work yourself, or even make a private derivative work from it,
> | you're free to do so, and many organizations in fact do that. The
> | GPL's requirement is just that if you want to share, you must enable
> | others to share likewise.
> `----
>
> http://www.questioncopyright.org/copyright_and_open_source

Erm...is copyright a problem here?  The only GNU
requirement is that one properly attribute, as far as I
can tell.  Could be a minor problem as code is subject to
rewrites, and one could even get into a "tug of war" ("Use
that method call!  No, that one!  No, that one!  I insist,
use THAT one!  Why you [censored]!  Hey!  That's my call!
I'll give YOU a call, you [censored]!  Ow!  Quit hitting my
[censored]!  [censored]...[censored]...") though that's
probably very rare, and otherwise, I'm not seeing an issue.

Then again, IANAL, and AFAICT the real problem isn't
copyright, but those who would unilaterally demand inflated
payment for works by using onerous implementations of DRM.

An anonymous poster does point out that the GPL is unique
in that it requires works derived from a GPL work to als
be distributed under the GPL, as opposed to the presumably
somewhat arbitrary whims of the original works' copyright
holder.

Binary data is by its very nature almost infinitely
duplicable, and if coded in certain ways, modifiable as
well.  One has to in fact duplicate data just to use it;
the disk drive [*] duplicates data into the head (the usual
phraseology is "read", but to-may-toh, to-mah-toh), which
pushes a copy onto the I/O cable, more copies go onto the
main data buss, and another copy gets transmogrified into
bit patterns that show up on screen.  Depending on data
type, these may be text characters, drawing instructions,
colored pels, or other things.

Just to get weird, one might have to destroy data in
order to read it.  I'm not sure any contemporary
system does that today, though various quantum-based
encryption systems take advantage of quantum mechanics
to foil eavesdroppers.  (Turns out even ferrule core
didn't destroy its contents during read.)

For its part dynamic RAM needs periodic rewrites, but the
reads do not destroy the charge on the transistor's gate,
though it does leak off on its own.

Encryption is another wrinkle, but encrypted data is
duplicable as well -- though it may not be all that useful,
looking like random noise to those without the proper
decoding key.

Internet traffic duplicates itself from node to node as
it eventually gets to where it is going.  Most nodes
discard uninteresting or already-processed traffic.

ASCII text, of course, is modifiable easily enough
(just respect the framing, 8 bits per char, and throw in
an occasional newline); other formats can be modified
with varying amounts of success.  A picture is worth a
thousand words, but might requires more software than
aforementioned ASCII (gimp versus vi) to view and edit.
Movies/videos require codecs to view properly, though I
view that as more of a technical issue (unless they're
proprietary encrypting codecs); an uncompressed full-screen
2560 x 2048 x 24bit x 30 fps movie is going to require
a bandwidth of about 3.77 gigabits/second, or 7.55 GHz,
to view properly.  Fortunately, blue sky compresses *real*
well under JPEG/MPEG. ;-)

So where, precisely, is the issue?  At best, DRM tries
to impose on near-infinitely-duplicable data the
notions of quaint old concepts of the material world,
like "I possess this gold nugget, and you don't".
At worst, it's a complete mess.

[*] the comments apply to magnetic-domain drives
    ("Winchester"), CD-ROM drives, DVDs, and to
    some extent USB "sticks", though the last have
    no real head as such.

-- 
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
People think that libraries are safe.  They're wrong.  They have ideas.
(Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.)

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index