• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’d go even further: developers ought to be required to submit reproducible builds to the Library of Congress in order to be eligible for copyright in the first place.

    (And copyright ought to be shortened back to its original term length, by the way.)

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sadly, even if I’m moralistically in favor, there is so much insane computer science logic (and proprietary mechanisms) behind the process of compilation, especially on certain embedded systems where this issue comes up, that I doubt that could ever be pushed into law.

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        This doesn’t make sense as the compilers would also be included in this new copyright scheme and would become public property after so much time.

        There are open source compilers for all major CPU architectures. In fact the open source compilers regularly outperform the closed source ones. It’s also not exactly that difficult to add on more architectures to an existing compiler these days thanks to the modular way modern compilers are built. Once you build a backend for LLVM you unlock not just one language but about a dozen.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It being possible for some is quite literally you using an anecdote to try and prove a norm. I sincerely hope you have enough logic skills to understand why that is stupid, incorrect, and bad logic…