On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> wrote: > Abolish copyright, prohibit DRM, mandate source release. With that > combo, there is no need for copyright law.
But by what policy or ethical position would we mandate source release? Just because we require it for software? If I buy a tractor, I can take it apart and modify it or improve it using my wrenches, cutting torch, and welder, but there's no requirement that I have to be given the designs. I'd definitely consider supporting those manufacturers who do provide blueprints, open hardware, etc.. (see LifeTrac), but going down the path towards complete transparency on all design and manufacturing isn't something that I'm sure should be legislated. > Copyleft is a means to an > end. The end is software freedom. If we can achieve software freedom > without that hack, great. It would be the greatest ideal if copyleft > indeed disappears because it is no longer needed. Without prohibition > of DRM and without mandatory source-release for published software, we > still need copyleft. Rather than a mandated position, I'd much prefer for copyleft to be the preferred choice for software, requested by an informed populace desiring transparency in the tools they use to control their money, protect their houses, and secure their private information. If software must be copyleft, would the same structure be imposed on all other aspects of design, production and interchange in our societies? I remain skeptical.. Cheers, --R -- Robinson Tryon QA Engineer - The Document Foundation LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald qu...@libreoffice.org 802-379-9482
