rmsrmsrms

Your contract is worse than marriage (no divorce), and a terrible strawman. Lifelong written contract with a stranger? Ugh. What if I change my mind? I'll just continue releasing things permissively, and gradually abolish copyright in the process. (I don't really care about attribution which is generally all that's left.) You're free to use what I make in your copyleft projects!!

It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as 3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue over IP.

The only reason to prefer 3-BSD is because public domain isn't recognized worldwide. I'll agree that there should probably be something about software patents in there, those are stupid.

Art expresses something ineffable about the self of the artist. Or at least this works for me, so far.

Sure, ok. Just to be clear, since it's possibly unclear, I wasn't claiming 5 myself.

If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license.

I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also want less dependence on men with guns. Since I want to abolish copyright, I do not like the GPL. The best way to abolish copyright in practice is to use a permissive license.

I was just trying to outline specifically what was bogus about his argument. That claim 4 is pure speculation is a pretty serious flaw. At no point did I make a comment about the conference - I don't even know what I think about it.

I think the argument he makes consists of several claims:

1) black people are an ethnic group or race // exact terminology and semantics is debatable

2) being black means you have a lower IQ (on average) // true in the US

3) IQ is in part genetically determined // true

4) the lower IQ of blacks is due to genetics // pure speculation, not possible to verify due to poor environment

5) having a lower IQ makes you a better slave // speculation

6) being black makes you a genetically better slave // follows from 4 and 5

It's possible that Moldbug reconsidered claim 4 due to all the attention it got. He reads HN.

> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".

If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?