Copyright is about monopoly. That's the antithesis of freedom.
Copyleft is a hack that turns monopoly inside-out. All for one, and one for all.
Without copyright, copyleft would be fundamentally broken. But that isn't the whole picture: anything under a permissive license like MIT or Apache2 would see the same result they implement today. Those are part of "open source", too.
And we could certainly come up with a different system to maintain copyleft: we could make regulation that preserves a user's right to edit their software, and bans practices like DRM and intentional incompatibility. That's what I imagine the "open source movement" would look like if it were brought to an extreme logical conclusion.
> bans practices like DRM and intentional incompatibility
more restrictions on the road to copyright freedom
if restricting what people are allowed to do with software is bad, why does that make it acceptable to create more restirctions on what people can do with software.
once we have 1,000 pages of restrictions closing all the interop and drm loopholes - our software will truely be free
Copyleft is a hack that turns monopoly inside-out. All for one, and one for all.
Without copyright, copyleft would be fundamentally broken. But that isn't the whole picture: anything under a permissive license like MIT or Apache2 would see the same result they implement today. Those are part of "open source", too.
And we could certainly come up with a different system to maintain copyleft: we could make regulation that preserves a user's right to edit their software, and bans practices like DRM and intentional incompatibility. That's what I imagine the "open source movement" would look like if it were brought to an extreme logical conclusion.