The first paragraph of this article annoys me. > Although the concept of copyright is anathema to many free software advocates, .... Only ignorant ones. (For

The first paragraph of this article annoys me. > Although the concept of copyright is anathema to many free software advocates, .... Only ignorant ones. (For those who don't get it: if you don't hold the copyright on a work, then you can't license it, under the GPL or anything else. Copyleft is firmly and inescapably founded on copyright.) > Copyleft licences like the GPL subvert copyright to ensure source code is always made available, .... I'm not sure how it can be considered subversive to insist that the original author's wishes, for how a work is licensed, are enforced by governments. That said, the rest of the article has some worthwhile things to say. > And unlike software licences, where there are some leading licences such as the GPL, LGPL, ASL and BSD, there are no leading agreements; companies and organisations have created their own documents to get contributors to hand over their rights, so to donate code meant parsing yet another document full of legalese. An excellent point, one worth thinking about. This is especially urgent, now that Harmony is around. Rather than simply criticizing it, it would be good to offer an alternative (or to explain, clearly, how some existing idea constitutes a better alternative).