>Copyrighted source code is just as dumb as copyrighted music sheets or copyrighted math theorems
True or false?
false. writing source code is like writing a book and there's copyright on books.
Imo music and code make some sense at least
Math does not
>>51823098
There's nothing wrong with copyrighted source code as a whole, indeed there are no two programs completely the same, the problem lies in copyrighting common parts.
>Copyrighted source code
still better than closed source
>>51823098
physical ownership is bad
physical usage rights are ok
intellectual ownership and usage rights are abominations
abstract concepts and ideas, like source code, music or math, can be replicated and made available to everyone who wishes to have access to them. there is no cost involved in this. there is no scarcity. restricting access is unnecessary and evil.
>>51824202
But then what's the incentive for innovation if everyone's going to steal all your work immediately for free?
>>51824231
Well they can "steal" my work but can they improve on it the same way I can?
I think the money should be made in *developing and maintaining* software, not licensing it.
>>51824231
the incentive is curiosity, the thirst for knowledge. do you think scientists only do their work because they get fat paychecks? nope.
>>51824231
>humans need incentive to create
What is all of science, art, music, and technology for the past 150 million years then?
Copyright in its current form has only existed for a few decades. The previous form of copyright was a means to make it easier for a talented creator to make MORE science and culture, not to make science or culture at all.
Thus we have a serious stagnation of culture and a growing impediment to scientific progress unless funded by philanthropic billionaires.
>>51824231
not everyone does things for fame and money
>>51824252
Explain where the income for those that are paying you to develop it is going to come from without licencing. Are people just going to pay you with money they pull out of their ass?
>>51823098
Yes. Mathematically speaking, a computer program is just a mathematical proof and vice versa. The same morals and laws should apply to both of them.
If you want to go all Gödel on it, a computer program is also just a natural number and the philosophical implications of restricting mention of certain numbers can be discussed for ages. See illegal numbers.
Note that distributing math without citing it properly is plagiarism. The same applies to source code. There's nothing morally wrong with actually infringing the COPYright of either, though, just the attribution right.
>>51824305
I doubt this is getting them laid.
>>51823098
a program as a whole I think should be copyrighted since you took time to right it so its technically yours.
APIs, and "chunks" of code should not how ever. expecially common parts
>>51825065
Of course it's yours. That shouldn't give you the right to dictate how others may copy it, though.
>>51823098
Did you know that the whole reading body language to determine if someone is lying is completely false?
It can't be done
I agree with attribution rights (I distribute a modified version but make it clear it's based on this guys program) but not copyright (I'm a criminal if I alter the code).
It sort of defeats the purpose of making your program open-source if you're not going to let people copy and modify it.
>>51823156
So essentially, copyright the implementation, not the concept?
>>51826080
the whole body language thing is overrated yes but still has some truth
