Private property is a good thing, lad

Private property is a good thing, lad.

People who wish to get rid of closed source software are mouthbreathing communist scum living off welfare, having said that I prefer Open Source software because it has faster development and it doesn't treat the user as a retarded tech illiterate ape ie. Apple.
Oh I almost forgot, sage you dumb Sup Forums kid.

>faster development
You've never heard of GIMP or LibreOffice, have you?

yall think MS would give a scholarship to a 30 year old guy?

>Private property is a good thing, lad.
Which is exactly why I should be able to determine what MY computer executes and what the programs I've bought do.

not until you make 1000 pro-MS posts on Sup Forums

I agree about property, but not about closed source. I should be allowed yo know what the software does in my computer.

You have to open source your entire computer sir, including your browsing habits. It's only fair after all.

You have every right to create proprietary software, just as I have every right to avoid it.

Intellectual property is not private property. Private property presupposes scarcity, which software, being infinitely replicable, is not. Copying 0s and 1s does not constitute subtraction of property, therefore it cannot be considered a violation of private property.

>which software, being infinitely replicable, is not
:thinks in bitcoin:

Ok, there are exceptions within software. My point still stands. Something can only make sense as private property if its scarce.

there are no exceptions; there are just mental gymnastics performed to rationalize your world view

>I can't argue so I'm gonna call it mental gymnastics
Also not "my" world view. It's literally the only way scarcity can be handled without any logical contradictions.
Read Proudhon, Mises and Rothbard.

My take on the MS view of proprietary: Where the *nix world had a half-baked, often non-working API for UIs, M$ had an entire 2D graphics library. Simple, but it worked and it was nearly the same no matter where you used it.

Now, on the other hand, I had to live through the whole "super seekret NT API" boogaloo, where you literally could not write a device driver unless you (or your employer) paid $$$ for the documentation. This is where they really get shat upon, and deserve it.

Another, unrelated example: Apple's infamous TrueType patent. They would not budge an inch on it, and it was about nothing more than a trivial script interpreter. Thanks to patent BS like this, M$ and Applel got their massive head start over the *nix community (this is literally why we had shitty font rendering for years).

Mathematics, and by extension software, should not be private property.

You lose nothing if I copy your code. It is still your private property to do whatever you want with it.

But I get my own copy and that's nice.

Then why dont they keep binaries for themselves? It's their private property

This

Well, why are we still under capitalism in a post-scarcity society then?
There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone!

Cool, do you know what Linux does? Have you read the entire source code?

it seems that way until you run out of land.

If it WERE a bad thing

So called ‘intellectual property’ laws are government granted monopolies, that while purportedly intended to encourage creativity have exactly the opposite effect.
Many examples and studies have shown the harmful effects of copyright and patents, but the reasons for this effects would be much more clear if one realizes that copyrights and patents are dramatic and arbitrary restrictions of both freedom of expression and free trade.
As with any other government regulations, it is not surprising that big corporations (eg., Microsoft and Monsanto) use them to stifle competition; while others (eg., the Church of Scientology) use them to censor information that could embarrass them.

Aside from all the abuses and unintended consequences, copyright and patents are a great obstacle to creativity and innovation: the creations of all great thinkers, inventors and artists in history would never have been possible in a vacuum and always depend on a context consisting of all the preexisting works and ideas.


tl;dr: patents are communism, intellectual property is communism.

You still own the free software you made. Even if someone else takes the code and modifies it, they must include a disclaimer with the original author and the original software.

Uh, I kinda agree with you, but I think you don't understand what communism is.

>*homeless*
>*dies because of no home, no way to pay for home and no other home to go to*

Not for infrastructure.

Being in control of someone elses private property is retarded
The consumer should have full rights to use a product however they see fit

No they don't. Not when costs for their mistakes are burdens on taxpayers.

No, can he change what he doesn't like? Yes.

>can he change what he doesn't like? Yes.
Incorrect.

>consumers' mistakes cost government
??
Also, big companies are built on externalizing costs and tax evasion, if anyone is making gov lose money it's them

Because we have to keep up the GDP lie, and destroy all the leftover food instead of giving it to poor people who cannot afford it.

>Private property presupposes scarcity

>put a handful of sand in a jar
>bring the jar home
>it's not my property because there's a lot of sand

???. I'm all for open source but this makes no sense.

/thread another pointless shitpost by OP

oh im sorry you americans literally don't consider healthcare at all and therefore don't link health to gov costs
back to your regular routine of 10 cheeseburgers a day

Yes, when my grandmother accidentally corrupts her Word document, it costs every taxpayer five cents.

Bitcoin is just a protocol
You don't "own" bitcoin, you just have a passphrase to "transfer" it between "wallets", but others can have it too after billions of years of computation
You can fork it and create johns-bitcoin that has a bigger btc limit
You can fork it and create us-coin that has additional support for an admin " account" that can move btc from any wallet to another
And the only thing making these less valid would be the chain lenght and hash complexity

>faster development

Linux still has no icons 13 years later.

Letting food spoil and throwing it into the trash gives a market more money from insurance than feeding poor does.

>btc limit
:thinks:
You do realize that minimizing the argument to a simple mindless example is stupid, correct? No one else could ever do anything else wrong with their products/services, everyone is just making "corrupt word documents". Surely you're old enough to realize such.

Having the option to do that is beter than not ever being able to find out what your system does and how it turns on by itself at night.

Can he? Looks like a very complex piece of software to fiddle around with. It's easier to change things on Windows, which has an actual stable API.

>SOFTWARE IS LIMITLESS, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE PRIVATE PROPERTY
but software relies on what resources to actually run?
and these resources are...?

it's as if everyone on Sup Forums flunked out of high school and thinks computers are magic black boxes

Oh, im sorry that you have no argument so you just assumed I'm american (which I'm not) to make one. Also you pulled the healthcare as "problem" out of your ass.
How does lack of IP laws lead to lose of health?
Assumimg that it does, why is the IP holder less likely to cause injury then somebody else?
Why shouldn't somebody who got injured have access to healthcare he pays for?
Also, that expense still covered by companies paying taxes.
>we cannot give people ability to edit what runs on their machine, they will make it explode by accident!
This might've worked on the 40+ demographic 25 years ago, but not today.

If free software is good, and the GPL is good, why are there no video games being released under the GPL. Why are there no video game business models based on the GPL?

Go back to my original comment. Read it. Read it over again. It's very clear you have absolutely no idea what is being discussed but want to 'win' a fight online. Pretty stereotypically American tbqh

>Private property is a good thing, lad.
They why do companies license me software instead of letting me own it and do what I want with it (like make 50 copies and give them to people)

Yes, his technical abilities do not matter and there is no difference with what closed and free software can implent. When taking only non-monetary arguments into account free software is just a pure benefit.
Just stick to criticizing that there would be no reason to make sw without monetary incentive, at least there you have some ground to stand on.

Yes, they have support and they are good.
But in home you kinda do not need it.

>work for company
>create "property"
>it's a huge subsection of your memory
>stop working for company
>no longer own that part of your brain
>and we'll sue the fuck out of you if you even try to use it

Intellectual property is nonsense. Everything builds on the work of people in the past. No one creates anything in a vacuum.

Because video games stopped being good years ago. It's all a bunch of crash grabbing nonsense catered to people with addictive personalities.

Are you implying that software shouldn't be free because hardware is not free? I don't see how one can be free while the other isn't.

It makes more sense for something physical to not be free if we're going to have property. You can contain it. It can't be reproduced, copied, and distributed nearly instaneously. It doesn't make sense that something that does not physically exist to be considered property because of how fluid it is. You're trying to call something your property but clearly you cannot in anyway contain itself. So you go to the government and say "contain what is uncontainable", and you think that is reasonable.

You're bad at finding good games. The indie community has saved us from what you're talking about.

Because if a video game was made FOSS, it wouldn't make money. It just so happens that most people who make games want to sell them. The same is not true for software designed to fill a purpose, such as all Linux software, browser extensions, etc.

>The same is not true for software,

video games are software, and they do fill a purpose

>Because if a video game was made FOSS, it wouldn't make money

So according to freetards, video games shouldn't exist?

I mean I'll be the first to admit as a person who used to play video games as an obsession that they shouldn't exist. Yet, they do, as humans seek out fun regardless.

>video games are only whatever the top 10 best selling games of the year are
wew lad

All property is artificially enforced by the state.

What stops me from stealing your shit besides the police?

Me.

ITT: wagecucks who don't understand that "free" means "free as in free speech, not free beer".

Lol nice bait.

>implying information can be property

>I can own things that aren't real
You literally C A N N O T

IP is not private property is it enforced purely through taxpayer funded legal means and most major tech companies are taxpayer (ESPECIALLY MICROSOFT) subsidized as well

By "fill a purpose" I mean in the sense of utility. FOSS exists because it's good to share code. That doesn't mean it's never good to *not* share code.

>So according to freetards, video games shouldn't exist?
Anyone who thinks the law of supply and demand doesn't help good things get made is a moron.

What is Open TTD?
What is Freeciv?
What is NetHack?
What is Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy?

I get your point though. There should be more GPL games. Maybe sell binaries but make the source available on request (as per GPL license). If you include the license and give the code if requested, you're good.

I think companies owning intellectual property is a problem. Companies do not die, companies do not think, they should not own intellectual property.

I'm not defending the original topic. But free as in free speech does not work if you want to make money.

Say I wrote a circuit simulator. Anyone can second source it as soon as I open the source and let others be "free to choose to run my simulator while knowing exactly what it runs". How do I compete with others in this context?

>Intellectual property is not private property.
Call it rights of the author then. Real men think in concepts, not words.

>How do I compete with others in this context?

It's called trademark law. It's still prohibited for someone to just copypasta your code and change the name. You would sue them for GPL infringement, and you would win.

It is quite possible to dual license - sell the compiled binary version under the usual EULA restrictive terms, but have the source code be open. You can also sell support and value-adds on top of the FOSS, see also Canonical, Red Hat, SuSE, etc.

That's what open source is all about. It is here to make sure that your pc is and stays your private property.

NOT what open source means.

>faster development
nice bait user

But it is so hard to enforce, do I reverse engineer every competitor? How about small changes which are enough to claim that it is a different program? What about my algorithm, now everyone knows my efficient sparse matrix solver algorithm, they can implement it before I come up with a better version totally within GPL limits, and they don't need to open the source because it's the algorithm not the code they're copying.

I don't care that Bill Gates shit is proprietary. I care that it's a piece of shit, and the fact that it is closed source means that nobody can take it, fork it, and make it worth a damn.

Not when it comes to information. All arguments for copyright fall back on analogies/intersections with the physical world. I don't get to steal your printed book because printed books are expensive to make and require capital to even start up a publisher. There's nothing wrong with sharing an ebook because no cost is incurred. Patents and trademarks and even trade secrets are fine but no legitimate argument exists for copyright. If you don't want people to have your software or your movie or your song, don't fucking publish it.

Speaking of I'm totally cool with Microsoft keeping the source code of Windows 10 to themselves, but not with them DMCAing the source code of 2K. One got out so it belongs to the public, and they're just impeding potential work by others by caring about the source of an obsolete twenty year old operating system.

Proprietary scum, there’s no such thing as private or personal in Communism, software or otherwise.

Hand over your information right now.

I don't mean to shill for communism but I believe that this is literally not the case and that personal property is a-okay to commies.

Copyright is the right of the author to decide how his work is to be distributed. In order to exercise this right he must be able to choose how many copies have to be made, which is made moot by piracy. You shouldnt have to choose between not letting anyone see your work or let everyone see it.

Maybe you should note that intellectual property generally means "forever not your property but someone else's, regardless if you buy it in a store". You're basically getting cheated of property that you should own after buying it, aren't you?

Open source acts either fully like your property, or at least each community member's (including yours) property with a mild sharing agreement.

The idea of "how many copies" is inherently nonsensical when a copy is not a tangible thing and one copy is completely indistinguishable from another. If I make fifty copies of a book on my hard drive, have I stolen fifty times as much from the author? Clearly no.

Your argument, as all arguments for copyright, makes sense in a physical world. If you don't want everyone to see it, share it with people you trust and don't publish it.

>You shouldnt have to choose between not letting anyone see your work or let everyone see it.
But of course, you should only get massive power (where you can determine not only the conditions of sales, but also resale, use and everything else) from a government granted monopoly.

Totally makes sense on tools like software is.

Why not extend the same bullshit to actual tools? Actually, extend it to water and food. It's probably for the best that I owned everything and everyone who drank or ate "my" food and thus formed a composition of my food plus their body, giving me rights over them.

Fuck yeah I want waterright. Bodily autonomy bro, who are you to say my piss isn't still part of my body?

>picture unrelated

It definitely is still part of your body. Which causes YOU a most severe problem.

Licensing conditions on MY proprietary water state that such use is not officially sanctioned without the presence of a company approved anal plug and company exec administered safety buttfuck. Realistic or not, all harm coming to you from my water is now your problem anyhow or limited to $5 in total, the lesser being applied if one of these is not permissible by law.

Furthermore, use of my proprietary water entitles me to any kind of use of every square inch of body it probably touched [and more, depending on how the water was used].
The default assertion we shall take is that it went everywhere in your body, to be scientifically disproven on a cell-by-cell base by you in case of a dispute.

Licensing is a great idea for water too, we totally should have that to not harm businesses like mine.

>is inherently nonsensical when a copy is not a tangible thing
How is it nonsensical? Youre just claiming it is without any argument. You can locate where these copies are i.e. in your hard drive, and can eliminate them at will.
>have I stolen fifty times as much from the author?
No, because copyright infringement isnt stealing. But you have infringed on an authors rights.
>If you don't want everyone to see it, share it with people you trust
Sharing IS publishing, only on a smaller level. And it's essentially what programmers do when they sell you their code (They share it with you because they trust you, and they trust you because you agreed to not share it with anyone else, with the so-called license agreement).

I've already paid for all the bits on my hard drive.
Cost of flipping a single bit almost inexistant and already included into my power bill.

>But of course, you should only get massive power (where you can determine not only the conditions of sales, but also resale, use and everything else) from a government granted monopoly.
Of course, the enforcement of your rights depend on the existance of an agent to enforce them, be they you with a gun or a powerful enough army.
>Why not extend the same bullshit to actual tools?
Because you havent given a reason to. Simple.

>But you have infringed on an authors rights.
What the fuck kind of right are you talking about? By what right does anyone have claim over how I shuffle a couple million electrons around on my personal property? You copyright shills like to throw around accusations of communism, but that's further than any Red would ever go.

> they trust you because you agreed to not share it with anyone else, with the so-called license agreement).
That sounds wrong. I'm pretty sure it's copyright that enforces the non-sharing?

As far as I understand, basically every image post on this mongolian cartoon board is also unlicensed, it just shouldn't happen! Hurr.

GIMP "just werks"; and there isn't much wrong with LOffice for me at least.

>Being a reductionist
Retard

Actually hol up let's get at a more fundamental question because this talk of "it's just electrons bro" reeks of Talmudism: Why do artists get to have control over how many copies are made?

I know the answer and it completely fucking defeats your line of reasoning.

>personal property is a-okay to commies

Give me the answer then.

Maybe. It's just my personal understanding of communist doctrine that you are allowed to own personal effects, just not "capital" i.e. land or factories or server farms or such.

I'm a Nazi, not a commie, pls no gas

It's not communism if you choose to use free software. It's more about being able to use your computer the way you want to (and therefore, only the code you want to execute). the open source part is just a side effect, because it's the only way you can be sure to only run what you want. I personally don't use only free software, but I like to use free alternatives to proprietary if I can.

Open Source is another business model where you receive source code along side program itself and I like that idea. Corporativism != capitalism, millennial commie cuck and I would better give my money to individual then to some (((corporation))) who will be pushing socialism, multiculti and totalitarian state for money. That's why I donated some cash to gnu project.

>I'm pretty sure it's copyright that enforces the non-sharing?
Not anymore than the right to life enforces criminals not killing you. Rights are things to be enforced.
>As far as I understand, basically every image post on this mongolian cartoon board is also unlicensed
Depends on the content of the image. Have you read your websites fine-print?

Supporting greedy (((corporations))) who work with state instead of individuals == support degeneracy, marxism and being anti-free market

Because the idea was created when making a copy, much less making many copies, was actually a fucking investment. It costs paper and ink and energy and access to a printing press to do a print run of your book. Copyright is fundamentally based on the cost of manifesting information in a physical form.

Corporatism is great though. Money-politics and megacorps is just what capitalism is.