2 ms·

You position your argument as a consumer, not a producer. Under your suggestion I can take the GNU source code, add some stuff, fix some bugs, and release a bi

You position your argument as a consumer, not a producer. Under your suggestion I can take the GNU source code, add some stuff, fix some bugs, and release a binary-only version (presumably for money). Under your suggestion, authors would have no control over their work at sell. Uou made z great text editor? Great, I'm using it in my proprietary closed-source IDE. Under your suggestion there would be no balance. Without the stick of virility there can be no carrot of "publish our source code". In the long run, the lack of copyright would hurt OSS since much of OSS is funded, directly or indirectly by commercial closed-source software.

Kamq 3y ago
> You position your argument as a consumer, not a producer. I am both. > Under your suggestion I can take the GNU source code, add some stuff, fix some bugs, and release a binary-only version (presumably for money). Sure, but you can't copyright the binary either then. In fact, get rid of intellectual property in general. It's kinda BS, since there's no natural scarcity. > Under your suggestion, authors would have no control over their work at sell. Correct. I think my previous sentence also covers this.