Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Tue 11 Dec 2018, 03:01
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Stop using the GPL
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 4 of 4 [51 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
aaaaa


Joined: 22 May 2018
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov 2018, 16:28    Post subject:  

It's all about seeking attention, nosystemd delivered a massive blow

musher0 wrote:

I will confess that this previous comment of mine is indeed off-thread:


It's all about attention:

When BSD people attack the GPL, musher0 defends the GPL

musher0 believes that the GPL enforces his copyrighted one-liners that he hasn't donated to mankind, but now he has been exposed again:

musher0 wrote:

-- GPL & Co offer no significant alternative to royalties ATM. Most of the devs
on this board contribute to Puppy as a hobby, that's true, and earn a living
otherwise. So no real problem.

The FSF et al. suggest getting paid by selling the docs, but hm... on a
voluntary basis on the part of the "customer". Or charge more for the
packaging and expedition than they really cost.

It's not very logical, is it?, to reroute the earnings generated by one activity
to another. Or honest, for that matter.


It's all about attention and hatred for the USA. Even when it comes to programming he'll find a way to be vocal about french canadian nationalism

Why are programming languages not written in french??!! Why do the english language is messing with my head? Why do i feel the need to hate it? Yes, it's because of colonialism, i'll write in french here so people can see i'm a rebel...

oui oui...

musher0 wrote:

-- you perceive "ad homs". Re-read my post, there aren't any, against you
or anyone else. My stance was and is FOR internationalism and AGAINST
colonialism. As I mentioned above, mostly off-topic in this thread, although
valid generally.


Talking about colonialism, it's all about attention. As nosystemd has pointed out , this is how you promote colonialism:

musher0 wrote:

It is also my deep belief that in this global era, any constitution of any
country should be subservient to international accords.


It's all about attention. Trolling is all about attention..

PS: this post should be preserved for the future: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1010289#1010289
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nosystemdthanks

Joined: 03 May 2018
Posts: 540

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov 2018, 17:37    Post subject:  

musher0 wrote:
Please accept
my apologies for that off-topic.


chinta mat karo, mafi mat mangoo
(dont worry, you dont have to apologise)

Quote:
-- The Geneva Convention offers 50 years recognition of copyright after
death of author; the US, 28 years after initial publication. Sorry, US
legislation; I can and will go with the Geneva Convention.


the wipo treaty (the berne convention) is the limit that you say it is. but you are applying it wrong-- where there are two jurisdictions, it is generally the lesser that legally applies internationally (much like if one person has a 56k modem and the other has dsl or cable, the transfer between them will never exceed 56k.)

however, i dont know what century youre in regarding this:

Quote:
the US, 28 years after initial publication. Sorry, US
legislation;


no, originally it was 14 years with a 14 year extension, then 28 years with a 28 year extension-- and these were only registered works.

as long ago as 1976, that changed to all works in a fixed medium whether registered or not. it was that recently when fair use came about to mitigate this.

as of the clinton administration, it became 95 years for a corporation, life plus 75 for individuals. thats more than 50 years no matter how you look at it.

i prefer wipo. but the exported versions (acta, tpp) dont just extend the terms they reduce the exceptions. thats tyrannical. it is also an existential threat to puppy (and anything like it) in some jurisdictions.

note that wipo is still 50 years to this day-- meanwhile, disney retroactively extends the term every time mickey mouse is about to go into the public domain.

there are not many regions in the world with perpetual copyright, but disney is getting it on the installment plan. britain has perpetual copyright on the kjv, but it has no jurisdiction outside of britain (the lesser term length applies once again.)


Quote:
-- GPL & Co offer no significant alternative to royalties ATM. Most of the devs
on this board contribute to Puppy as a hobby, that's true, and earn a living
otherwise. So no real problem.


the vast assortment of gpl software allows you the right to use and redistribute the software (whether you do anything else at all) provided that you do not keep public changes to yourself. in other words, the only restriction is you may not restrict your contributions to the existing assortment.

you do not have to add to it at all. but if you do, you must contribute the additions that hook the operating system.

this doesnt legally affect what you do outside of that codebase.

Quote:
The FSF et al. suggest getting paid by selling the docs, but hm... on a
voluntary basis on the part of the "customer". Or charge more for the
packaging and expedition than they really cost.


like everything else youve said about the gpl so far, this is a fraction of what is actually said and an oversimplification at that part of it as well.

it is common knowledge that you can sell copies of gpl software, but due to the fact that anybody can, there is not much money to be made from copies.

Quote:
It's not very logical, is it?,


i do not believe you are deliberately committing strawman fallacy, but the thing you say isnt very logical is also not what the fsf says. like many things youve complained about so far-- it is a hypothetical, non-existant version of the fsfs position and policy.

Quote:
In other words,


not just in other words, in a purely irrelevant scenario that has nothing to do with the fsf or gpl, really--

Quote:
a lot of fancy skating is done around it, but the essential
problem for the free-lancing professionals in this trade, of putting in place a
fair pay system for their work, remains whole.


whats unfair about the gpl? you think you have said, but you havent touched it yet. you have said a few things about some other license or policy that does not exist-- and i am not calling you a liar, i am saying you are mistaken.

(as you are about the american copyright terms.)

note that perpetual copyright isnt just unconstitutional (article 1, section 8-- "by securing for limited times")

its also very rare globally, and very impractical-- without perpetual copyright, which was pushed forward as a concept (albeit an unconstitutional one) by american mpaa head jack valenti more than any other person in history-- "intellectual property" itself is just intended to conflate physical property laws with government-granted monopolies.

they work differently, the laws are different, and if intellectual property really did exist in reality, youd need to pay up for your right to use a piano. or the alphabet. or bachs 12-tone scale.

which you get for free, just like with free software.

a historical lesson here: for most of copyrights existence, including the dawn of higher-level languages like b-0 and cobol, copyright didnt apply to software at all.

you couldnt copyright software. you still cant copyright math, either-- which software (and yes, music) maps to, 1:1.

ultimately, people are being very unconstitutionally prosecuted and charged subscription fees for the right to share very long integers.

stuff isnt entering the public domain after 50 years-- if it was, i wouldnt be so pissed off about it. we would be getting new stuff every year-- which is the only purported purpose of this modern copyright:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause#History

instead, the entire public domain is being skated around with unconstitutional laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain_Day#Public_domain

it wasnt until software went from being a gratis commodity to a newly-legislated monopoly that gates sprung up and started telling people they couldnt share programs.

the fsf didnt have a radical, illogical idea. it exists to work around the historically recent, radical, illogical idea that long integers can be owned by a person or corporation:



032110111119032119104097116032119097115032105108108111103105099097108032097098111117116032116104101032103112108044032097103097105110063 = "now what was illogical about the gpl, again?"

the encoding is different than ascii or unicode, the implication is the same.

here is the legal paradox of all copyright law in the internet age:

all analogue recordings can be sampled (at a rate where the senses cannot distinguish further resolution) into digital files, and all digital files can be mapped to a single integer.

take the largest of the integers-- lets pretend its all 5 seasons of babylon 5, and then produce a work that consists of every consecutive number from 0 to that integer.

the consecutive list of integers is not copyrightable.

now take any one of those individual numbers of sufficent length, which refers 1:1 to a film or book or photograph that isnt in the public domain.

distribute one of those numbers, and it is a crime. but the list of numbers (where a single line contains your song or photo or program) is not copyrightable. it is just a consecutive list of integers.

reduced to mathematics, copyright is nonsense and contradicts itself.

you cant copyright math, you certainly cant copyright a number. but if that uncopyrightable number overlaps with the integer encoding of a protected work, that uncopyrightable number is prohibited from redistribution by copyright law.

so pure integer math isnt copyrightable by law, but it is in practice.

thus, copyright continues to exist because:

a. greed

b. people suck at math

c. people dont like lawyers, but still prefer them to philosophers (and math)

d. we are still holding onto a legal concept that became pure nonsense (but still a nice handwavey idea) the moment that we had machines that could do the math

e. all of the above

if you think d. is fun now, wait for ai to become even more mainstream.

youll be prohibited from composing a song because a program wrote it first. indeed, it could do that just by writing out that same consecutive list of integers-- if that list were copyrightable.

until enough people figure out how silly all that is, this is the best way to put a work like this long integer into the public domain:

Code:
    license: creative commons cc0 1.0 (public domain)
    http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/


it works in places like finland, where you cant even do that-- so for finns, it does the next best thing.

license: creative commons cc0 1.0 (public domain)
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

_________________
the end of the distro war, and the distro https://ptpb.pw/OnBT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 13152
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov 2018, 19:48    Post subject:  

FWIW regarding this discussion, it's different in Canada, although no
doubt with some common traits:
Quote:
Protected Works
See also:
Authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada

A work must be original and can include literary, dramatic,
musical and artistic works or compilations.

Copyright is granted the moment the work is created and
does not distinguish work of a professional or that of an amateur.

There is also no distinction between for profit or commercial use
or for hobby purposes.

Literary work includes anything that is written, such as speeches,
essays and books and may be in any form. However, a short
string of words or spontaneous speech is not covered.

Dramatic works include the characters, scenes, choreography,
cinematography, relationship between characters, dialogue and
dramatic expression.

Artistic works include sculptures, paintings, photographs, charts
and engravings.

Musical works include any musical compositions with or without
words. Unexpressed ideas are not protected work.[40]

Copyright also extends to incomplete creations such as proposals,
treatments and formats, and infringement can occur when subsequent
audiovisual works use their elements without ever actually literally
copying them.[41]

It is unclear whether the subjects in interviews have copyright in
the words they utter (and thus be considered to be their authors),
as the courts have not definitively ruled on the issues of originality
and fixation in such cases.[42] However, in Gould Estate v Stoddart
Publishing Co Ltd, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that "offhand
comments that [the interviewee] knew could find their way into the
public domain ... [were] not the kind of disclosure which the Copyright
Act intended to protect."[43]

Ownership of a creative work may be assigned to a corporation or
other employer as part of an employment contract. In such a cases,
the employer retains ownership of the creative work even after the
contract ends. The new copyright owner is therefore free to make
changes to the finished product without the creator's consent.[44]

A creative employee, meanwhile, may continue to use his or her
experience, expertise, and memory to create a similar product after
the conclusion of a contract. In 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal
upheld a literal interpretation of the word "copy" and found that a
software engineer's creation of a "similar" product from memory did not
constitute infringement of his former employer's copyright.[45]

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Canada#Protected_Works

In bulk:
-- in a way, glad to be mistaken, since so much info comes out of it. Laughing

-- A piano is NOT a creative work (in the usual sense of "creative"), so
not protected by copyright. Maybe American composer John Cage could
have claimed copyright for his "prepared" pianos, but that's pushing it
pretty hard. After Cristofori invented the piano, that was it.

-- The well-tempered 12-tone scale is not Bach's. He wrote a set of
famous Preludes and Fugues using it, but he did not invent it. Similarly to
the piano, the 12-tone scale is not a creative work, so copyright does not
apply to it.

As trivia: Ancient Greek mathematician Pythagore formulated the theory
of his 12-tone scale in the 6th century BCE! (It's a different, awkward,
scale, to our modern ears.) Good luck to Disney on that one... Laughing

Perhaps some patents would have applied, if patents existed in the
1700's. I suspect Steinway, Bosendorfer, Yamaha, Kawai, etc., have
patents for their current lines of pianos.

I think we should not confuse patent and copyright.

-- To the extent that software is considered a "literary work", and is the
creative arrangement of a computer language, it can be copyrighted.
Quote:
For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”;

Source.

-- May I suggest you find a way to make clear the distinction between the
ideas you wish to push through regarding freeware, etc., and the state of
copyright as it currently exists. It would facilitate understanding of your
reasoning (my understanding, but perhaps other people's).

-- I picked up my info about US (c) law in the 20th Century, ca 1982. Smile

BFN.

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Je suis né pour aimer et non pas pour haïr. (Sophocle) /
I was born to love and not to hate. (Sophocles)

Last edited by musher0 on Fri 16 Nov 2018, 20:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nosystemdthanks

Joined: 03 May 2018
Posts: 540

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov 2018, 20:00    Post subject:  

i think your 1982 work was misquoted, as the copyright term was already more than 28 years by then.

http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/%28C%29_Term.html

Quote:
I think we should not confuse patent and copyright.


the entire purpose of the term "intelectual property" is to confuse patent with copyright, copyright with trademark, and all of the above with physical property rights-- all of the above have different laws and limits. by conflating them it is easier to maximise each one. it is harder for people to know what to comment about them.

kudos to you then, if you reject the term "intellectual property" although it is in "wipo".

but yes, a piano would be a matter of patent and not copyright.

generally speaking, the piano patents expired after 20 years (there might be an extension after that, but not a perpetual one) and the way they skirt that is to make dubious resubmissions with minor changes-- some of which are legit, others are dubious.

but good to know about bach.

what these things have in common is-- all are intended to go into the public domain. the canadian version doesnt look that different than the american one or the british one in practice. there are differences in exceptions-- some places have fair use, others have fair dealing as exceptions..

fair dealing is easier to establish because its so exact-- but it is also more restrictive for the same reason.

but yes, we should avoid conflating patents and trademarks and copyright-- unless it is to point out that they are often conflated.

_________________
the end of the distro war, and the distro https://ptpb.pw/OnBT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 13152
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov 2018, 20:24    Post subject:  

About comflation...

The fruit basket on my kitchen table contains an apple, a pear and a banana.
Although in the same fruit basket, they are still respectively an apple, a pear
and a banana...

BFN.

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Je suis né pour aimer et non pas pour haïr. (Sophocle) /
I was born to love and not to hate. (Sophocles)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nosystemdthanks

Joined: 03 May 2018
Posts: 540

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov 2018, 20:42    Post subject:  

musher0 wrote:
The fruit basket on my kitchen table contains an apple, a pear and a banana.
Although in the same fruit basket, they are still respectively an apple, a pear
and a banana...


thats not conflation, thats grouping by category. theres no confusion between apples and bananas.

take out the apple, pear and banana and then put in a cucumber, tomato and grape. its a bit more like that. "apples and oranges" are also fruits for that matter:

Quote:
apples and oranges - drawing comparisons between events or sets of circumstances that seem to share a common denominator but are in fact distinct from one another by virtue of having occurred during different time periods, in different places, under different socio-economic conditions, to different groups of people, etc., can lead to the incorrect assumption that, just because something is true under one set of circumstances, it will necessarily hold true for all circumstances of a similar sort. The act of making such comparisons is sometimes referred to as "comparing apples and oranges."


https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/considerations/fallacies.html

you can make valid comparisons, and invalid ones.

it isnt conflating when the comparison is valid or relevant-- but when it glosses things over or misses the point, thats when people start pointing fingers at it. both are fruit-- both exist in the same universe-- that doesnt mean they are the same thing in a way that is relevant to the discussion. though it depends on what two things are being compared, and which aspects.

if the topic is the levels of citric acid, you wouldnt put apples and oranges together except for contrast-- rather than comparison.

all of which is really obvious, but when people conflate other things in an argument, it is not always readily noticed.

_________________
the end of the distro war, and the distro https://ptpb.pw/OnBT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 4 [51 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0936s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0129s) ][ GZIP on ]