🇳🇱
@SteveTheDragon thats not communism or socialism, it is capitalism. Capitalism allows people to give things away for free, and it is their choice under what terms they do so (that is the key). The fact that you can pick 20 different types of open source licenses, or none at all, is capitalism.
If it were communism you wouldnt even have the option to decide to open source your code, the government would just take it from you and then set whatever demands on you they wish on your own code.
The confusion is understandable. The problem is: what does ownership mean in this case. You can't own the Linux kernel. It's impossible to have control over it, as soon an it's on other people's devices.
It's not the software that is property, it's the copyright. The right to exercise the monopoly on the use of this specific piece of code.
That's the right, managed by all the licences. People working on free software, don't want to go into the business of monetising copyright.
Monetising copyright is a specialised business, and it hinders development. It makes economical sense to make free software and make a living installing it or running it.
@SteveTheDragon
What confusion?
Your argument doesnt make sense to me
> What does ownership mean in this case. You can't own the Linux kernel. It's impossible to have control over it, as soon an it's on other people's devices.
Ownership refers to the person who owns the program. you then go into "impossible to control".. thats unrelated to ownership. Ownership does not require one have control over a thing, only that legally it is theirs.
In fact we have plenty of examples where we have seen this not to be true. Microsoft owns windows, and they have no trouble legally exercising that ownership.
in fact we have countless examples of someone else owning something you control, cars (rentals, leases), renting a home.
This whole argument tries to assert things that are true and easily disproven. so its a bad starting point.
> It's not the software that is property, it's the copyright.
copyright is just a technically term for "owning the software" so not really changes anything about what is being said here. Yes the person who **creates** the code has rights over how it is used, thats what is meant by ownership.
> That's the right, managed by all the licences. People working on free software, don't want to go into the business of monetising copyright.
This also is fundamentally incorrect. I open-source virtually all the code I write. I also make a lot of money directly or indirectly off of my open-sourced code. A great many people and companies monetize their copyrights and there are many ways and models to do this within the open-source domain.
> Monetising copyright is a specialised business, and it hinders development. It makes economical sense to make free software and make a living installing it or running it.
While I obviously wont agree that monetising is bad, as we covered open-source includes the ability to monetize as many businesses do, I will agree of course that open-source is good and generally helps everyone economically. More importantly however this isnt the point. You are basically arguing that open source is good for everyone (I agree).. but that does nothing to counter my original point that open-source is fundamentally capitalism in that it goves the author to choice to open-source or not, and under what terms.
A few years ago there was a lawsuit about theft of weapons in MMRORPG. And yes the exclusive ability to control the objects was a mayor part of being a possession. (It had to be a possession to be stolen) The exclusive ability to control is pretty essential for possession
Microsoft own the trademark, a unique right to sell stuff with windows-logo's.
One of the things you can do with all your possessions, is rent them out, give in use. Legally that's control over something.
> A few years ago there was a lawsuit about theft of weapons in MMRORPG. And yes the exclusive ability to control the objects was a mayor part of being a possession.
Please show me the specific legal decision and original wording that reflects this assertion. I'd be happy to consider it.
It seems to me your just getting it backwards. If you legally possess something the law gives you some level of control over it. It does not however mean you must prove you have control over something in order to own it or that loosing such control means you no longer own it.
I gave several such examples to that point, renting a car being a good one. The owner keeps legal ownership and therefore from the law (not the other way around) has a right to control that car in certain limited ways (such as recall it to their possession)... but by renting out that car they give away far more control than they retain. The person they rent to decides where it goes, when it goes there, what route it takes, pretty much has complete control over the car for the time of that rental. Yet the owner does not loose ownership simply because they give away control.
well no I live in both the netherlands and the USA, so depends where im at which law im under. But thats not the point.
And yea, its pretty different in other countries. I still havent heard you explain how car rental could be possible if it werent the case in other countries that control does not determine ownership.
Not sure where you think anything in that link disagreed with me or agrees with you, other than perhaps the non-lawyer authors opinions. But certainly the case he cited does not.
And it's not very different I other countries.