Workshop Paid Mods

[psi29a]

Your rights stop where mine begin.

And where is that, exactly? It is often the case that your rights and mine conflict, and that is where we as a society must step in and decide whose rights trump whose. The Berne convention would have us believe that the consumer of "intellectual property" has no rights whatsoever, other than what the author deigns to grant her.

The consumer has no rights, except for what the creator has granted. Otherwise things like the GPL could not be enforceable because the consumer (be it an individual or a company) would do what pleases them.

My ball, my rules. Don't get me wrong however, I moved most of my projects away from GPL to the MIT license where it made sense because I like the spirit behind it and it aligns more with my world view.

That being said, it is more subtle than that because we do have laws that govern what can and can't be copyrighted, trademarked, trade secreted and patented. These things are still being defined and refined.

For example, it is legal, to take headers from the Linux kernel (under GPL mind you) and include it in your proprietary program without having to GPL the program. This is because the headers, as an API, is not copyright-able. This is in thanks to Google vs. Oracle in conjuction with laws handling reverse engineering and interoperability. If you think this is wrong, you can bring up your objections to my company's lawyers.

[K0kt409P]

My ball, my rules.

The problem lies in defining what constitutes your ball, as opposed to mine.

You have a ball. You sell me the ball. Is it still your ball? Do you still get to decide what I can do with the ball?

You make a painting. You sell me the painting. Is it still your painting? Do you still get to decide what I can to with the painting?

You make a digital painting. You sell me a copy of the digital painting. Is the copy yours? Do you still get to decide what I can do with the copy?

[psi29a]

define ownership

I understand your point, but my ball is my ball until I give it to you, then it is your ball.

The 'giving' is the agreement that was made, under contract. Now before the ball is given to you, we have to define the contract in which you may have the ball. Once the contract is agreed to by both parties, then you are the owner of the ball.

This is all really simplistic, because the contract can be whatever we agree to. The ball, of course is a tangible object in this case but can be applied to paintings or even digital paintings (assets). At this point, it comes down to the 'contract'.

If there is no contract, than the default is 'all rights reserved' and you don't get to own, much less play with the ball.

[ezze]

Berne Convention applies to copyright; that's what you mean? Use the word copyright.

I understand your point, but my ball is my ball until I give it to you, then it is your ball.

We are speaking of digital stuff, where easily you can and me can have a copy of the ball. But seeing of you reacted from the well explained link I won't bother anymore.

[psi29a]

I read your link and not for the first time either, I've met Stallman and have been waist-deep in GPL code since the 90s.

While I'm not a lawyer (IANAL), I do know how it works practically. This is no small part from dealing with IP lawyers and I have talked with them. I trust my lawyers, my company doesn't pay them for nothing.

In the eyes of the law, whether the ball is physical or digital is irrelevant as it is considered "tangible". The only real difference is the cost of reproduction. I'll just swap the ball out with code: My code, my rules.

What is now interesting is how additive manufacture (i.e. 3d-printing) will be treated when used to replicate objects with a 3d-scanner. Will this be the case of cassette (analog) copying, because it isn't a perfect copy?