3 ms·
Interesting that he's said that, I wasn't aware. I think at its root the problem is copyleft is a mirror image of copyright. It relies on and replicates all th
by Guid_NewGuid 4y ago
Interesting that he's said that, I wasn't aware.
I think at its root the problem is copyleft is a mirror image of copyright. It relies on and replicates all the cultural and legal requirements and constraints of the copyright model and curtails an imagining of other possibilities. Every sentence or thought spent on copyleft is misdirected in my view.
Which is why I find Microsoft doing this (potential) en-masse license violation and then a bunch of GPL folks getting mad pretty funny overall. I just find the high and mighty tone annoying, like sure, they've (allegedly) screwed you, but they're going to (theoretically) get away with it because they're rich and powerful, sorry that didn't turn out how you wanted.
- Kbelicius 4y ago>I think at its root the problem is copyleft is a mirror image of copyright. That is the (only)point of copyleft. If it weren't for copyright it wouldn't exist. Fight fire with fire, that sort of thing.
- rcxdude 4y agoI don't think that's true: copyleft is right to repair for software. Even if the software is not copyrightable without the source code users are still relatively powerless. (Incidentally this is related to why patents were created: not to constrain or encourage innovation, but to get people to publish inventions instead of keeping them secret). If copyright were abolished and so too copyleft destroyed, linux users freedoms would probably materially go down, not up (though in general user freedom would marginally increase because most software is not copyleft).
- imtringued 4y agoCopyleft is formalized code sharing. Pretty much an excuse to tell people to share their code.