Depends on your starting point. One could take an ethical point of view, and argue the baseline is public domain. Compared to that, copyleft does restrict one

Depends on your starting point. One could take an ethical point of view, and argue the baseline is public domain. Compared to that, copyleft does restrict one's ability to put further restrictions. Permissive zealots argue that such a restriction is unacceptable, on the grounds that any restriction is unacceptable. Apparently they don't even approve of the insurance policy that prevents the very restrictions they say they loath. The present thread has the same structure. Someone says it's unacceptable for an entity (not even a person!) to restrict one's freedom of speech with no recourse, and the moral equivalent of the Permissive Zealot snaps that forbidding that power to forbid is unacceptable, "because freedom". Do libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?