(GPL-style) Open Source only relies on copyright because of how guarantees of reciprocal freedom are currently tacked on top of it (it is a hack). It should no

(GPL-style) Open Source only relies on copyright because of how guarantees of reciprocal freedom are currently tacked on top of it (it is a hack). It should not be too hard to imagine 'implementing' it in a different way. Such as through a specific law that required giving users access to the source code (and other freedoms, possibly extending to derivative works) if a certain piece of software were marked as Open Source (or for all software, as Stallman would probably prefer it). (yes this might make Open Source software a less attractive alternative, as it would be competing against free as in a free lunch, but as the market-landscape would be changed in favor of FOSS production models as well, by this, and FOSS has certain benefits even if produced for a fee (ability to hire competing firms for implementing fixes and modifications), there are good reasons to assume FOSS would still flourish) It keeps surprising me how otherwise intelligent/educated people don't see this option...