rentar42

You know that you too are writing in a script, right?

“Easy.” You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sure, but in most of these discussions the ones arguing for “getting rid of copyright” mostly just mean “stop big companies from owning everything”. When mentioning that FOSS licenses depend on copyright to work it’s usually some form of “we’d have to find a way to still make them work …”.

You’re approaching a relevant part (that big corporations have an overwhelming power advantage in this “negotiation”), but “small artists never use copyright law” is just wrong:

Without copyright law they couldn’t even sell their content (or more accurately: they could sell it, but the big corp could simply copy it and sell it better/cheaper due to the economics of scale).

So without copyright the smaller artists would be even more boned than they are right now.

Expert analysis direct to your inbox.

directly below

Saudi Arabia is trying to block a global deal to end fossil fuels, negotiators say

makes me think that maybe I don’t really need that specific offer …

It’s funny how often that argument comes up in FOSS (Free and open source software) circles where people just claim copyright is fundamentally wrong, but at the same time complain when someone violates any FOSS license (all of which depend on copyright to be enforcable).

IMO copyright as a concept makes sense, but it’s duration should be significantly shortened. In todays short-lived world most works lose the majority of their financial value after a few years (let’s say ~10) anyways. So to allow artists to benefit from their creations while still allowing remixing or reasonably recent content I’d say some sane compromise is necessary.

Either that or massively expand (and codify) what qualifies as fair use: let anyone reinterpret anything, but don’t allow verbatim copying.

Simple solutions are not the same thing as easy solutions.

And I guarantee that the majority of it will simply copy todays Mickey Mouse as opposed to the one in steamboat Willie.

But that version isn’t entering the public domain any time soon.

Billionaires don’t “work”. At least not in the sense that they get some amount of money that’s in any way in relation to the value they create. They shuffle around money to do things for them and sometimes that makes them more money. Calling that “work” lessens the meaning of that word and gives them too much credit.

I like to imagine that whenever there was a particularly slow day or someone was particularly stressed, they just opened the prepared article and tweaked and improved it a bit … it’s probably the collaborative work of many people over many years.

And if that’s not enough, then at least there won’t be any humans around to suffer through it!

But you’re fighting against a fundamental urge of life here … kinda hard to achieve that at a large scale. At least that’s why I tell myself and my kid.

I was answering under the assumption/the context of of “Amazon wants to release an Android-based OS that doesn’t contact any of Googles services”.

So, when I said “easy enough to remove” that was relative to releasing any commercial OS based on AOSP, as in: this will be one of the smallest tasks involved in this whole venture.

They will need an (at least semi-automated) way to keep up with changes from upstream and still apply their own code-changes on top of that anyway and once that is set up, a small set of 10-ish 3-line patches is not a lot of effort. For an individual getting started and trying to keep that all up to do date individually it’s a bit more of an effort, granted.

The list you linked is very interesting, but I suspect that much of that isn’t in AOSP, my suspicion is that at most the things up to and excluding the Updater even exist in AOSP.

A cop out or a coping mechanism. Employers steal so much from employees: time, wages, sense of purpose, sometimes even health. And most of us don’t have good ways to stop them (because socienty). So stealing a bit back might actually help feeling less hopeless.

Yes, but those minor traces are easy enough to remove, especially if you don’t care about being “ceritified” by Google (i.e. are not planning to run the Google services).

Good. 10 Billion $ of inheritance tax seems reasonable. Could be higher (we don’t need billionaires), but it’s a good start.

I just checked it out. That licensing documentation is a mess. They say that it’s released under the AGPL, but not all of it? So what they are saying is that the whole product is not actually under the AGPL. I wonder if their “freeware” part can actually be removed without major loss of functionality. Because if that’s possible, then you could simply rebundle that one.

But I suspect it exists exactly to “taint” the open source nature of the product.

Note that they said “not intended” and not “not allowed”. you are perfectly within your right to use the program under the GPL without licensing it otherwise.

But the company would prefer if you paid for a license (and support). If you weren’t allowed the use you do, they would have said as much, but they didn’t.

This is a common business practice with open source software and I don’t particularly think it s “wrong”, but the fact that they are apparently trying to use confusion to make it look like you have to buy a license for commercial use is very icky in my opinion (but is unfortunately also very common).

I’m afraid you’re underestimating the effects of propaganda and nationalism. Those can do frightening things to normal humans.

How so? It seems to consist basically entirely of direct quotes. So unless they misquoted or are leaving out some massively important context, I can’t see how it would be biased.