- the main input (land) is also an output, so when the price of the output goes up, so does the value of the input.
- economies of scale don't really work, due to the impracticality of transporting the good (houses) and fitting the good inside a machine (in house "factories", normal workers go inside the house and work on it by hand; not a lot changes compared to traditional construction)
- more supply in one area increases the value (and therefore demand) in that area, so it's not actually clear-cut whether building more would reduce the price more than it increases it, at first glance.
I don't dispute your own personal motives, but if it's never been a goal for most people, then CC0 would be more popular than the BSD or MIT license - it's simpler and much more legally straightforward to apply.
Well, I would argue that if I didn't spend that time, then even a personal fork that I vibe coded would be worse, even for me personally. It would be incompatible with upstream changes, more likely to crash or have bugs, more difficult to modify in the future (and cause drift in the model's own output) etc.
I always find it odd that people say both that vibe coding has obvious and immediate negative consequences in terms of quality and at the same time that nobody could learn or be incentivized to produce better architecture and code quality from vibe coding when they would obviously face those consequences.
>They are largely concerned about employment (and more generally economic stability) and to that end seek measures intended to protect workers.
Pffft no. Most of us think that AI is being used as a political trick - like firing unionized workers "to replace them with AI" and then hiring new un-unionized workers to replace them, 2 weeks later. Replace the AI with an empty cardboard box labeled "AI" in black marker, and nothing changes.
See also: using AI to launder pirated material, for big businesses.
>a political trick - like firing unionized workers
1. Since when have companies needed trillions of dollars of AI to do that? In the US they've been able to get away with getting rid of unions for decades now.
2. Since when has HN given a shit about unions. Posting about unions, at least till recently has been a great way of getting your comment downvoted to [dead] in one easy step. For longer than LLMs have existed the HN answer to unions was "They are just there to keep me as an SWE from making as much money as I can". Only now do we see a little bit of pushback now that their heads may be next on the chopping block.
That would be insane for aerospace software, where you might spend most of that time getting the code certified (required to break the $0 revenue threshold), let alone paying back your costs and then making an actual profit.
Meanwhile, there are cases where copyright of more than 2 years is overkill.
I don't know what, but it seems like we need some sort of mechanism for variable-length IP duration is needed.
Is copyright meaningful for aerospace software? I'm largely unfamiliar with that domain but I have trouble imagining that (for example) Boeing cares much about people redistributing or hacking on the control software for a 777. How would that impact their bottom line?
I could understand for medical devices maybe but even then it seems like the software is a tiny part of the overall cost of a given design. A competitor could already do a clean room reimplementation in that case.
But I guess it wouldn't be all that bad if there were a carefully crafted extension for government certified software that was explicitly tied to the length of the certification process.
The only problem with this certified software exception is I foresee they'll write the law as "expiration timer starts when software has finished certification" then some lobby group will get the regulatory departments to adopt a new process of partial certification where said software is usable in devices but the 'finished certification' never gets reached so the copyright gets dragged out forever.
Nope, it falls more under trade secrets than copyright.
If you do something that requires stealing the code (publishing it, selling it, etc) the company can legally fuck you up.
Now, once it's in tbe wind, it becomes almost impossible to pursue from a practical point of view, as any implementer can claim trade secrets to avoid showing you the code.
I think the point is more that many kinds of software (presumably including aerospace software) doesn't really need any kinds of protections from redistribution because it is effectively only useful for a specific design and much of the effort in creating it is not the algorithms that a competitor could steal without copyright or alternative protection but certifying that the software fits the rest of the system, which any competitor making use of the software would have to do again.
Also remember that the original point of copyright and patent protections is to encourage people to create the protected works in the first place but Boeing isn't just going to stop making aerospace software without copyright because their hardware will be useless without it. So if anything, any software that is needed for hardware made by the same company to function doesn't really have any right to be copyrightable at all.
If certification is the actual cost, you don't need copyright, at all. SQLite is in the public domain. Your moat is the certification itself, not the code.
I can't use SQLite for aviation even though it was certified.
I can't even claim FIPS compliance for my software without going through an expensive process, even though I only use FIPS approved primitives.
Building on certified/compliant libraries helps, but their vendors can certainly contractually make me pay for it.
All OSS libraries have a warranty disclaimer; using them according to even those licenses automatically excludes "fitness for a particular purpose."
Why would public domain software be any different?
The moat is the certification process, not the code itself. "I copied this from somewhere after it was already certified" might fast track something, but it's not gonna fly with "certification was good, done."
> some sort of mechanism for variable-length IP duration is needed
I've always liked the idea of a Harberger tax-style patent enforcement fee:
The patent owner declares the value of their patent on an annual basis and pays 1-5% of that declared value per year for the privilege of relying on the government to enforce their exclusive ownership of the patent. At any point, another party can buy the patent at its declared value, which discourages patent-holders from declaring artificially low values. The annual fee discourages artificially high valuations for indefinite periods of time -- as the patent yields less return over time it makes less sense to keep paying a high annual fee, encouraging owners to lower the declared valuation or end the patent protection altogether when it's no longer profitable.
To discourage hoarding patents indefinitely one could either set a hard upper limit (e.g. 60 years) or increase the fee over time, for example every few years the fee increases by 1% until at some point the patent is effectively publicly owned.
Wait for the great new times when an AI will certify aerospace, automotive and medical SW. Waiting for that. It will be 1000x better and faster than the existing processes
Have you seen the quality of regular software though? And the failure rate of regular physical items? The only reason I trust aircraft is because of the process.
Consider if you will that if some guy were to fly a drone the size of a car that he knocked together in his garage over a residential area people would not accept that. Yet private pilots in cessnas fly over neighborhoods constantly.
Lots of people who don't read the HN Guidelines, apparently:
In Comments
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. Instead, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized. More formatting info here.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead.
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
- the main input (land) is also an output, so when the price of the output goes up, so does the value of the input.
- economies of scale don't really work, due to the impracticality of transporting the good (houses) and fitting the good inside a machine (in house "factories", normal workers go inside the house and work on it by hand; not a lot changes compared to traditional construction)
- more supply in one area increases the value (and therefore demand) in that area, so it's not actually clear-cut whether building more would reduce the price more than it increases it, at first glance.
reply