What happens to source-available without copyright?

[Wuzzy]

Assuming you live in Anarcholand, in which no copyright law exists, would all source-avaliable software also automatically be free software (at least in Anarcholand)?

[CYBERDEViL]

Is the anarchist from Anarcholand allowed to run, study, modify and distribute the code?

[Wuzzy]

Yes, there is no law prohibiting it.

I should clarify:

- The software has public source code, but no license attached. In other words, source-available
- Anarcholand has no copyright law, and no law that prohibits any of the 4 Freedoms in any other way (like, for example the infamous DMCA from the U.S.A.)

If you live in Copyrightland (where we live now), the software is clearly non-free.
But what happens if you live in Anarcholand?

[Julius]

You are basically saying that if there was no copyright, then copyright wouldn't exists

[CYBERDEViL]

But what happens if you live in Anarcholand?

Probably some a**holes will try to "liberate" Anarcholand.

[drummyfish]

The answer is a license wouldn't be required for a SW to be free, but source availability wouldn't automatically make it a free SW. Always ask whether the 4 freedoms are guaranteed IN PRACTICE.

The 4 freedoms aren't only the question of law, you can have a SW with a free license that isn't free in practice (e.g. because it's purposefully overcomplicated so that in practice hardly anyone can study it, modify it or even compile it).

Now if there is no intellectual property law that by default disables some of the essential rights, you don't need a license in order for the SW to be free. However if the freedoms are prevented by other ways such as there being a fascist group that by the right of the stronger kills you if you try to modify their software, the software is not free. It doesn't matter what exactly it is that denies you your right.

So firstly ask WHY do we even define free software? We do it so that people can together create good and ethical tools; that's why we define the 4 freedoms. These freedoms have to ultimately be guaranteed practically. Nowadays the biggest obstacle is law which is why we are concerned with licenses, but in a different society law may be completely irrelevant and there may be other obstacles to SW freedom. Always stay focused on the end goal, as definitions and calssifications are here only to server this goal.

[Jastiv]

The answer is a license wouldn't be required for a SW to be free, but source availability wouldn't automatically make it a free SW. Always ask whether the 4 freedoms are guaranteed IN PRACTICE.

The 4 freedoms aren't only the question of law, you can have a SW with a free license that isn't free in practice (e.g. because it's purposefully overcomplicated so that in practice hardly anyone can study it, modify it or even compile it).

I've defiantly seen some of that. It is like people work hard to make the whole thing "harder" to work with and modify. That is why I really like the philosophy of suckless games, not that I always make things suckless, but it is definitely something to strive for, rather than making things like "dependency hunt" or "you have to do a bunch of complicated obscure stuff to modify the game" None the less, a lot of proprietary games get mods in spite of the horrid system that can include things like hex-editing, reverse engineering, rewriting the entire codebase, stuffing assets into obscure formats etc etc, not that free software doesn't have its horrors too. Part of it is definitely a "business model" thing, "only I can understand it, or very few people can so modders are harder to find." but also because of "look at me, I learned a bunch of new stuff such as learning this trending library no one knows how to use, its already outdated, but your distro is using an even older version, too bad you can't make it work, that isn't the point, the point is that I demonstrate my skill as a developer for employers, not actually make and ship a game.