• SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I have always thought that copyright on code is a bit pointless. Its like copyrighting engineering formulas and calculations. Given a particular problem, there are obvious solutions. The process should not be copyrightable.

    I am also anti-copyrighting of features and ideas.

    The only thing that should be copyrightable is the result of an technological or human investment, not the process and method for getting there.

    That and copyright protection period should be shorter and non renewable.

    • Dremor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I think we mostly agree on that.

      Idealy feature or idea shouldn’t be copyrightable, but to acheive that we have to find ways to make sure those who work on those new featurea and idea can live decently.

      If you work for years on something new, to see it immediately copied by someone who drown your product with cheaper copies, that’d kinda be disheartening for anyone.

      What I think would be ideal would be a standard license fee. One cannot prevent other from copying that idea, but one has to pay a reasonable sum to the owner of the idea until the R&D costs are paid (maybe a bit more so it can grow and invest in costlier invention), after which it becomes public domain.

      In all cases, credits are to be given to the inventor, a way or another.