
Djb and Copyright (2004) - nkurz
http://thedjbway.b0llix.net/license_free.html
======
nfoz
Is this accurate? Perhaps I am one of the "bamboozled" mentioned in [1], as I
tend to assume that the default copyright of works, in accordance with the
Berne convention[2], do not yield the right to make and distribute copies nor
derivative works.

[1] [http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html](http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention)

I'd love to think that djb is correct, and that I do not need to distribute
LICENSE files along with software in order for the users to have these
freedoms that I expect them to have.

I want copyright to be _abolished_. I do use CC0 [3] for many works. For
software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour from
being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If we abolish
copyright, then I would be all the happier that my works no longer require the
GPL to protect these freedoms.

[3]
[https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

~~~
tzs
> I want copyright to be abolished. I do use CC0 [3] for many works. For
> software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically to prevent my labour
> from being used in a way that limits the freedoms of others. If we abolish
> copyright, then I would be all the happier that my works no longer require
> the GPL to protect these freedoms

If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about
protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist.
Anyone could copy your software, modify it, build the modified binary, and
distribute that modified binary without source, and locked down as tight as
they want with DRM, and requiring updates be signed with a key only they have.

You could try to counter this, of course, by carefully only giving copies of
your code to people who enter into a contractual relationship with you in
which they agree to not do any of those things you do not like, and to keep
your code secret from others who have not entered into such an agreement with
you...but it only takes on person leaking the code to the public and then it
is game over.

~~~
malgorithms
> If we abolish copyright, you certainly no longer have to worry about
> protecting those freedoms, because those freedoms would no longer exist

I think you and the poster above you likely have very different definitions of
freedom. Supporting copyright is taking the stance that a reduction of freedom
(to reproduce info) is worth it, in exchange for an economic incentive to
invent. The world ends up with better stuff, and the inventors are rewarded.

(That is the argument anyway.)

Those who wish to abolish copyright usually either (1) think the economic
argument is flawed or (2) believe that the freedom is simply more important
than the economic gains. Or some blend/combo of those 2 arguments.

So I'm curious what you mean that it actually leads to less freedom.

~~~
tzs
I'm not talking about economics at all. The poster above me is talking about
"freedom" in the same sense the FSF does--the freedom of the users of a
program to (1) run it as they wish, for any purpose, (2) to study how it
works, and change it to work as they wish, (3) to redistribute it as they
wish, and (4) to redistribute any modified versions they make.

The reason they use GPL for their license, instead of something much simpler
such as a BSD style license or MIT style license, is that they want to ensure
that anyone who obtains their software will be able to do all of the things
listed above.

As the poster above me put it:

    
    
       For software, however, I like to use GPLv3 specifically
       to prevent my labour from being used in a way that limits
       the freedoms of others.
    

If I were to take a copy of his software, modify it, build a binary from the
modified copy, and use that in my proprietary product without making the
modified source available to the users of my product, he would believe that I
have limited the freedom of the users of my product. If I were to use a code
signing scheme in the firmware of my product to block software updates that
are not signed by me, he would consider that as limiting the freedom of my
users. If I make my users sign a legally binding agreement to not reverse
engineer the code before I allow them to buy the product, he would consider
that as limiting the freedom of my users.

He doesn't want me to be able to do any of that that, and so he uses GPLv3,
which is only effective because of copyright. If copyright were eliminated,
"Free Software" of the kind the FSF strives for is not possible.

~~~
icebraining
It's true that the GPL currently uses copyright law to achieve its goals; but
it's not true that copyright is the only possible way of achieving them.

If we're assuming legislative power (to abolish copyright), there's no reason
we couldn't pass laws to achieve the same goals without copyright.

~~~
tzs
If the new law actually makes it illegal to provide software or use software
in an embedded system without including source, and makes it illegal to use
signing or other technical means to stop the user of a device that contains
software from replacing that software, and makes any contract term that tries
to place conditions on someone redistributing software they have received from
others, then yes, we could achieve GPL goals without copyright.

Otherwise, its still a copyright law. It's just more limited than current
copyright law in that it might only cover software, and provide drastically
fewer options for the author.

The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are
so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility

~~~
icebraining
_The chances of anything like I described in the first paragraph happening are
so low, I felt justified in ignoring the possibility_

Fair enough, but the discussion happens in the context of abolishing
copyright, something that exists in (almost?) every single country in the
world, and which is consecrated in many constitutions, include the US'.

------
williamstein
I was part of a panel discussion with DJB in 2006, in which I maybe (!?)
convinced him to make all his code until then much more open source. It was
video'd here:
[http://wstein.org/sagedays6/M2U00221-sd6-panel_discussion.MP...](http://wstein.org/sagedays6/M2U00221-sd6-panel_discussion.MPG)
[2GB download!]

He also talks about his philosophy about what people care about in software.

This was before youtube. Somebody should upload it to youtube... (sorry, I
can't right now, due to limited bandwidth).

(I know DJB, since we had the same thesis adviser in graduate school....)

~~~
mukyu
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTy32aQ11E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTy32aQ11E)

------
icebraining
So, he doesn't have licenses, except he does, in the way of a FAQ that is much
harder to evaluate as for its legal grounds (unlike standard licenses, which
have often been tested in court).

------
ForHackernews
It may be true that DJB is a great ideological champion of free software, but
in practical terms, his refusal to license his software means that any
organization with a legal department will be extremely hesitant use his
software.

~~~
mlinksva
He put at least qmail in the public domain in 2007.

[https://lwn.net/Articles/260481/](https://lwn.net/Articles/260481/)

Further explained at
[http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html](http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html) which
IIRC has been linked many times here.

~~~
ForHackernews
Yeah, that's nice but about 9 years too late while the rest of the FLOSS world
had moved on from qmail to Exim or Postfix.

