Software licensing will eventually be relegated to the “dustbin of history”, hopefully it won’t be after humanity emerges from a post-apocalyptic hellscape.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah. Software licensing is artificial scarcity, trying to make the new world of bits seem like the old world of objects so that people who knew how to make money with objects can still make money with bits.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Are not the copyleft licenses the opposite of artificial scarcity, not just affirming that opposite, but also affirming to not impose that artificial scarcity later on, as a condition?

Even permissive licenses start from an absence of artificial scarcity. Even if though later on, forks can add their artificial scarcity.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

Yes, that's the distinguishing feature of the GPL. The ironic thing is that the only thing that gives the GPL its power is the thing it's trying to fight. If IP laws didn't exist, the GPL would be unenforceable, but it would also be unnecessary.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree that it's artificial scarcity, but I don't think the conversation is going to fully be able to move to removing that scarcity until we find a way to handle the people who rearrange the bits actually living in a world of objects and totally authentic scarcity.

It's the same dilemma we have with authors and musicians. Even if it can be infinitely copied the people who make it still need to eat, and not just be able to find a way to eat, but to reliably and predictably eat which makes donations and crowd funding iffy at best.

As a user and contributer to open source, I'm loath to put up any defense of something that irritates me more often than not. As a person who makes a living working on the closed side I can honestly say I would probably not be in the field if there wasn't as much ability to make a living in it.

Software patents can fuck off though.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

It will probably take something like universal basic income. Also, before copyright etc. a lot of art was created when a patron paid the artist for their work. In modern times, a single individual patron has been replaced by a bunch of them using Patreon. In addition, some people (not enough) are employed to work on open source software. It's similar to a patron kind of arrangement because someone is paying for the "artist" to work, even though the thing the artist produces can't be owned by the employer.

I think if you combine all those various things the need for "intellectual property" goes away. But, the people who currently make money from IP are going to fight tooth and nail to keep it.

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

apocalyptic hellscape

Which is, sadly, where we are right now

[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Heading there but plenty of room to get worse