> So no, it's not about a specific situation. It's about the principle of the thing. That's fair. > i.e. if the FSF can be founded on the principle of freedom

> So no, it's not about a specific situation. It's about the principle of the thing. That's fair. > i.e. if the FSF can be founded on the principle of freedom, why can't I claim to believe in the principle of freedom too? They're founded on a principle of freedom as defined specifically by the four freedoms. > The logical conclusion of that statement is that copyright doesn't really matter, whether the license is GPL or not. Violators can ignore the copyright, secure in the confidence that the majority of people won't have the resources to sue. Yes there's a problem with the Copyright system. But the law does act as a deterrent because there is always risk involved in violating it. > So why don't we assign copyright for all open source projects to the FSF? The simple answer: they only accept copyright assignments for GNU projects. They don't have the staff for enforcing others' copyrights, though; there's other organizations for that, like the Conservancy. > After all, if the software is free, it doesn't really matter who the copyright holder is, right? Sure it does: only the Copyright holder has standing in court.