This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit.
I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end.
> Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic?
Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?
Computer programs are radically different from literary and artistic works. It’s unsurprising that laws that were designed for paper books are less than a great fit for software. Indeed, software probably shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection at all. Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions.
> Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?
In that case you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative.
> Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions.
Yet Recipe Books (particular curated collections of recipes) are afforded copyright protection. If your argument is that copyright should not be given to general algorithms like the FFT, new methods of fast matrix multiplication, the Carmack Hack, etc., then I actually completely agree with you. In all art, there is a level too granular to be copyrightable. In music, it's chord progressions and simple, obvious melodies. In books, it's common idioms and simple sentences like "Terrified, he ran." In programming, it's basic/common algorithms, design patterns, and commonly used control flow. None of that should be afforded copyright protection, and I hate seeing the frivolous lawsuits that come up in all those fields based on these trivial similarities.
Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable.
For what it's worth: IMO code should not be eligible for patent protection. It's actually possible for someone to dislike software patents, support right to repair, and also support copyright protection for programmers.
> you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative
It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is.
> Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable.
Mathematical and logical formulas also aren't subject to copyright, so your Haskell argument doesn't hold water even if we do allow that functional code somehow isn't clearly reducible to a set of instructions.
The correct solution is to come up with some kind of legal regime that's actually designed for software rather than trying to torture a law for printing presses into saying something meaningful and equitable about software.
> It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is.
What's outrageous about the statement that software that I am free to modify has greater value than software that performs the same function but that I am not free to modify?
> The correct solution is to come up with some kind of legal regime that's actually designed for software
Sure, I agree with that. You told me to revise my expectations for something much less unrealistic than that, though. But let's work toward it anyway. In the meantime, let's extend copyright protection to programmers and stop shaming them for accepting it.
> Mathematical and logical formulas also aren't subject to copyright
But mathematical journal paper submissions are! This is not a counter-argument. My point is that code is more than just its function. Code is written for humans, not for computers. Let me ask you this: if your code doesn't compile, is it really a sequence of instructions? No, it's not! It's still copyrightable, though.
> {Outrageous statement} ... "that's outrageous!" ... what's outrageous about {entirely different, much softer statement}!?
> In the meantime, let's extend copyright protection to programmers and stop shaming them for accepting it.
Who is shaming programmers for accepting copyright protection? The entire free software copyleft concept, while admittedly a kludge, rests on programmers having copyright protection. However, I and many others can and will continue to shame anyone who violates user freedom because violating the rights of others is shameful behavior.
> This is boring.
Lots of things are boring when you willfully misinterpret them.
Don’t you agree that you’re providing more value by offering software that respects user freedoms than by not?
The problem is you’re relying on copyright to create economic opportunity at the cost of user freedom. A better approach for everyone involved would to be a system that rewards respect for user freedom since that’s providing more value than not. Unfortunately trying to pound the square copyright peg into that round hole just doesn’t work very well so it’s strange that an idealist like you is advocating it so strongly.
I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then?
> right to repair
This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit.
I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end.
> Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic?
Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?