Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
That’s fair! Though I find it (new laws that enforce the principles of copyleft) pretty unlikely so I’d much prefer a world with copyright + copyleft (GPL) than a world without either where mega corporations can exploit the commons without being obliged to share back.
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.
Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.
The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.
How is that the case? I’ve got pretty much zero experience with decompiling software, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone who does say that before. I genuinely can’t imagine that it’s easier to work with say, decompiling a game to make changes to it rather than just having the source available for it.
I suppose unless the context is just regarding running software then of course it’s easier to just run a binary that’s already a binary - but then I’m not sure I see where decompiling comes into relevance.
Compilers strip all the bullshit from the code. Most software projects have shitty code structure and navigating them without prior exposure is a bloody nightmare. Everything gets a lot easier in binary.
Compiler optimisations flatten the code into an easier to understand structure. You don’t have to just around function definitions in multiple files when the compiler inlined them all for you to see on one screen.
Assembly debuggers usually have a lot more features than source code based ones: trapping OS calls, scripting, etc. They make life so much easier.
Most software developers have no fucking clue how computers work, it’s all magic to them. People joke about “vibe coding with AI” these days, but let’s be real, 99% of software developers are vibe coders, but with Google instead of AI. Of course these people will never understand a bit of assembly, they can’t even fucking grasp the basics of higher level languages!
There’s nothing hard about binaries, code is code.
Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
That’s fair! Though I find it (new laws that enforce the principles of copyleft) pretty unlikely so I’d much prefer a world with copyright + copyleft (GPL) than a world without either where mega corporations can exploit the commons without being obliged to share back.
It’s literally called copyright because it’s about the rights to copy something. The new law would still be a form of copyright.
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.
Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.
The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.
As someone who has extensive experience with decompiling, I can say that working with binaries is usually a lot easier than with a source code.
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
How is that the case? I’ve got pretty much zero experience with decompiling software, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone who does say that before. I genuinely can’t imagine that it’s easier to work with say, decompiling a game to make changes to it rather than just having the source available for it.
I suppose unless the context is just regarding running software then of course it’s easier to just run a binary that’s already a binary - but then I’m not sure I see where decompiling comes into relevance.
Several reasons:
Most software developers have no fucking clue how computers work, it’s all magic to them. People joke about “vibe coding with AI” these days, but let’s be real, 99% of software developers are vibe coders, but with Google instead of AI. Of course these people will never understand a bit of assembly, they can’t even fucking grasp the basics of higher level languages!
There’s nothing hard about binaries, code is code.