How is it pathetic that I wished to honor and respect someone else's work and respect a license transfer even if unclaimed? If anything, I did what was right, even if you see it as wrong. At least I am an ethical person with morals, my biggest flaw apparently.

even if you might be right from some point of view
it is not the best practice to ignore common rules and do what you want.
this does generally not work well and is more destructive than productive.
formulate a problem, discuss a problem, maybe you can change something

An assembly of uncopywritable segments into one whole work is still copywritable...that link explains that an algorithm, for example, (or its implementation) may not be copywritable, but the work containing it may be. A SlackBuild is an assembly of multiple specifically selected non-copywritable parts in a particular order. The choice of which parts to include depends on the package and the SlackBuild author's preferences, as does the order. The work as a whole is therefore copywritable.

If you want to argue the semantics of why something should/shouldn't be copywritable that's fine, but I'm still at a loss as to what you are gaining by using other people's work without giving credit. While I don't agree with your sentiment that SlackBuilds are immune from copywrite, I can at least understand your arguments; I still haven't found any sound reasoning in this thread as to why deliberately removing licenses was at all beneficial to you or anyone else. Maybe it makes it look like you did more work than you did? I don't get it. The rest of the work was sufficient to display your competence and effort without needing to resort to that. I still think the rational choice would be to restore the repository with licenses intact and everybody wins but I guess that's just one man's opinion.

2 members found this post helpful.

The choice one has what non-copyrightable part to include is severely limited and is determined by the build system used by the developer of the software being packaged. The order of these non-copyrightable parts too. You can't run "make install" before "make" nor "make" before "configure" for example.

I gain nothing. I have never expected any gain. It's that simple. I didn't claim any credit for tweaking or writing when needed of 176 scripts so they can work fine with slackware64-current. You couldn't see my name nowhere. It's a trivial technical job that doesn't involve any creativity. So I can afford this little rebellion against this copyright claim frenzy at SBO and Slackware. If you look back all this copyright nonsense popped up in 13.0.

BTW copywrite is slightly different than copyright

Anyway, I have a long week before me so

EOF
EOF
EOF

2 members found this post helpful.

you can do what you want and so can others.
if they have put a license text there, than it is as it is.
(And historically rebels are less successful than Hollywood might make us believe.:-)

yes, but partially already more early. for example
http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackwa...get.SlackBuild

and I am sure there is a good reason for this.
possible something like this one or something sillilare?
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...rasite-708535/

I unfortunately remember the Bluewhite64 incident. Yes, that was bad what happened, but it proved that licensing protects everyone's interests rather than hinders development.

This thread should be the official poster-child for the wasteland created by intellectual property!

Here we are, 5 pages and 65 posts later with no problems solved, no code written, discussed or shared, no conclusions reached and little or no respect given or earned.

Instead, the energies and intelligence of all has been uselessly dissipated into an Orwellian stratoshpere in a pointless discussion of legalities based on the principle of who might potentially claim ownership of what thought, maybe.

The truth is that most of those copyright notices are there only because we have all been taught to believe that they must be there! We have become lab rats running around the intellectual property maze!

The simple concept that ideas can be owned kills open discussion and precludes free interchange of useful ideas, as demonstrated in this thread!

It wastes our finite mental energies in endless pseudo-legal discussion, and prevents them being applied to useful advancement of ideas, also as demonstrated in this thread!

It replaces human appreciation, acknowledgment and mutual respect with legalistic ideas of ownership and obligation and utterly destroys beneficial human interaction and sharing of thoughts, dreams, joy of life and discovery!

If we remove that single element from the discussion, then all those copyright notices and the legal verbiage that accompanies them reduce to simple statements of origin, which is most often what the author really intended if they had though much about it!

Then, instead of arguing over ambiguities of ownership, we would simply be acknowledging Pat, or Robby, or Eric, or Ivandi or whoever appeared in the list of contributors - no longer owners but respected contributors! Instead of living in fear of the claims of others, we would be sharing, improving and extending the code and showing some appreciation for the work of others that we are building on!

The concept in law that one human being can own a thought or idea to the exclusion of all others is an unspeakable evil with many consequences - all bad!

I will never use the terms copyright or license in any of my own code ever again. Instead I have written a template for a Statement of Origin and Principle, as shown below. I encourage everyone to consider using this or something similar and avoid the useless waste that results from saying "copyright" or "license", when what you really want to do is share your code for the benefit of all...

2 members found this post helpful.

Unfortunately, copyrights and licenses are a necessary evil to prevent someone from falsifying ownership and stealing credit. In the perfect world, we'd never need laws, licenses, and disclaimers, but the world is far from perfect.

Yes, we are forced to wade through this quagmire, but only by the will of those who steal, discredit, and usurp real efforts of others who work hard for their efforts paying off.

This is why licenses like the BSDL and MIT license as well as GPL, LGPL, ISC, and CDDL exist. You have a choice regarding the license you pick and choose in terms of how restrictive and liberal you want your project.

Sigh... point missed completely.

Until you actually consider that you cannot own a thought or idea, you will never see over the walls of the maze in which you labor.

Once you do, you will see there is no ownership to falsify, no credit to steal, no power to grant license over an idea and no thought crime to be committed.

You cannot own an idea to the exclusion of all other intelligent beings - get over it so we can progress as a species!

4 members found this post helpful.

I agree completely. But perhaps it would be more productive to send this to the elected representatives of your jurisdiction, instead of various people posting variations ad nauseam to us powerless serfs here, who (I guess) probably all agree with you already. Until the Berne Convention is reformed, we all have to work *within* the Berne Convention to Get Stuff Done (TM).

Regarding this one alone, I *strenuously* disagree. As a threshold issue, this is "moral right", as distinct from copyright, and if you don't live in a "moral right" jurisdiction, you really should read up about it before deciding it's a bad thing.

And you should probably also meditate upon http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

4 members found this post helpful.

Plus on top of that we live in a society under the rule of law, not the rule of man.

As I said, we do not live in a perfect world.

Here's why your idea will never work...

If a thief steals and copyrights The Statement of Origin and Principle or a project derived thereof, and it isn't licensed or copyrighted as you claim, who could take your defense and win legally? Anyone could take your effort and discredit it, destroy it, and make your work a mockery. Why? Because you created it, gave up ownership to commonality, and have nothing to back it up legally. They could effectively relicense your work, copyright it, and then sue you into the poorhouse and maybe have you thrown in prison for copyright infringement. So you say "Under the moral law, I wish you not to steal from me." What a joke! Yes, it's unethical. Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's shameful. But guess whose fault it is for being so shortsighted? Yours. Because you snubbed the law. You chose not be rebellious. You chose to not conform. And guess who wins? The thieves. Your efforts lie in waste, ruin, and mocked.

Way to go... Clap clap clap.

Agree or disagree all you want. This is the real world, and it not fair to anyone, and everyone has to cover their own ass both metaphorically and realistically.

1 members found this post helpful.

You still did not understand what astrogeek is trying to tell you.

Ivandi, too bad you closed the site, I really wanted to try it.

1 members found this post helpful.

Same here. +1

No I understand perfectly. It's the facts are what they are. If an idea is mine, it's my idea, not yours, and you do not get credit for it. That's what intellectual property rights mean. Yes, you can freely share the idea, but unless there are rules to govern those rights of use, sharing, and ongoing development, then you the creator, have no rights to your own ideas and intellectual property. Someone can still come along and steal it. This is why we do not live, and shall never live in a perfect world. I could care less if you thought my idea was from some mystical ether and you deserved equal rights to it. Your brain didn't conceive the idea, you didn't act on it, you didn't put it into reality by work, and therefore you deserve zero credit. I will share it with you and the world, but all you get to do, legally is use it, and it is up to me if you have access to contribute to that idea.

If I did not think you were serious that might be funny, in a humour noir kind of way...

That is not the world I woke up in this morning.

Then you do not understand anything at all...

You are an otherwise intelligent person locked into a belief system that teaches that your own well being depends upon remaining within it. That system pre-arms you with reflexive arguments against any competing thoughts, even your own, and you are on some level in fear of looking over the temple walls. It will be very difficult for you to see the truth and beauty that lies beyond those walls, but hope springs eternal.

1 members found this post helpful.