Copyright Ruined Unix as the Mainstream OS The Rise of Unix. The Seeds of its Fall. • The Rise of Unix. The ... A Chronicle of the Unix Wars • A Chronicle of the Uni...
I think copyright is moral in principle. Also, without it, we probably wouldn't have had Unix to begin with. That said, the current copyright duration is ridiculous. Giving a 10 year copyright on software would be enough for people to make money, and if they want to keep updating it with newer versions, they'll still have 10 years on each of those, so people who want an up to date version will mostly pay for it. Also, I think it would be good to have some organisation which could verify and then hold source code, and working compilation instructions, for the 10-year copyright duration, and then release it once the copyright has expired.
I don't think it is useful to think of whether Unix by AT&T would have been made or not with or without copyright, given that the GNU operating system started by Richard Stallman combined with the Linux kernel were all made as free/libre software. But historically Unix was initially only meant to be for internal use only in AT&T, as far as I know. So Unix therefore would have been made regardless of whether copyright existed or not. Remember also that Unix wasn't allowed to sell the operating system to begin with because of the monopoly laws in USA regarding the "natural monopoly" that AT&T held as a tele-phone company. So actually what you said is invalidated by these historical facts. The source code of Unix was handed out to universities such as University of California Berkeley, creating the BSD line of Unix operating systems. Copyright hardly served much benefit for the development of Unix and even more so later Unix-like clones especially. But even if it was the case that Unix wasn't made, GNU+Linux would have been made (or whatever equivalent that alternative timeline would have had). Copyright is not a benefit for software development. But here I am only looking at the technical side of things. If we talk about morality, I say copyright itself is evil, I have a separate speech on the evils of copyright regarding art, but I also have several speeches regarding computer software and software freedom. The speech on my channel titled "Why Software Freedom is Important" with the youtube id r3ANyWiGwrI explains software freedom in simple terms. And the id of the speech about copyright regarding art is titled "Copyright Hinders Creative Potential" with the id CzTH3eIrnAU
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
I think copyright is moral in principle. Also, without it, we probably wouldn't have had Unix to begin with. That said, the current copyright duration is ridiculous. Giving a 10 year copyright on software would be enough for people to make money, and if they want to keep updating it with newer versions, they'll still have 10 years on each of those, so people who want an up to date version will mostly pay for it.
Also, I think it would be good to have some organisation which could verify and then hold source code, and working compilation instructions, for the 10-year copyright duration, and then release it once the copyright has expired.
I don't think it is useful to think of whether Unix by AT&T would have been made or not with or without copyright, given that the GNU operating system started by Richard Stallman combined with the Linux kernel were all made as free/libre software.
But historically Unix was initially only meant to be for internal use only in AT&T, as far as I know. So Unix therefore would have been made regardless of whether copyright existed or not. Remember also that Unix wasn't allowed to sell the operating system to begin with because of the monopoly laws in USA regarding the "natural monopoly" that AT&T held as a tele-phone company. So actually what you said is invalidated by these historical facts. The source code of Unix was handed out to universities such as University of California Berkeley, creating the BSD line of Unix operating systems.
Copyright hardly served much benefit for the development of Unix and even more so later Unix-like clones especially.
But even if it was the case that Unix wasn't made, GNU+Linux would have been made (or whatever equivalent that alternative timeline would have had). Copyright is not a benefit for software development. But here I am only looking at the technical side of things. If we talk about morality, I say copyright itself is evil, I have a separate speech on the evils of copyright regarding art, but I also have several speeches regarding computer software and software freedom.
The speech on my channel titled "Why Software Freedom is Important" with the youtube id r3ANyWiGwrI explains software freedom in simple terms.
And the id of the speech about copyright regarding art is titled "Copyright Hinders Creative Potential" with the id CzTH3eIrnAU
sand