What happens if you include AGPL code into your commercial product assuming copyright laws exists: * you must give source code (to the software users, not nece

What happens if you include AGPL code into your commercial product assuming copyright laws exists: * you must give source code (to the software users, not necessarily to anyone) * receivers of software gain rights to modify it (because AGPL says so) * receivers of software gain rights to further distribute it with or without modifications (because AGPL says so) What happens in the previous scenario without copyright law: * receivers of software can modify it (because copyright law doesn't prevent it) * receivers of software can further distribute it (because copyright law doesn't prevent it) Even more so the same happens automatically if you don't include AGPL code. That's 2/3 things which copyleft code grants not being necessary because there is nothing preventing it. Sure not having the source code and having to reverse engineer things to modify them takes more effort. But large portion of software is closed source anyway, reality is that in many case GPL type licenses instead of increasing amount of open source software simply prevents its usage in the commercial software. The current trend with programming languages is going for higher level ones which are much easier to reverse engineer or require barely any reverse engineering. There are also plenty examples where copyright law get's used to prevent doing anything near the product containing closed source software not even directly modifying the software in situations where people are willing to spend the effort for creating new software or do the reverse engineering. Stuff like John Deer preventing repairs because you own the tractor but not the software. Cricut (vinyl cutter maker) preventing creation of third party desktop software for using their hardware because that would somehow violate copyrights of their firmware. Preventing commercial software from using open source libraries isn't the goal of Free Software. It's a middle finger for copyright law doing the same in opposite direction. The idea is that benefits of being able to freely modify and distribute any software might be might outweigh the few cases where software vendor decided instead of not using the GPL library to make their whole software open source. We can only speculate how it would play out in long term. Would more commercial software be written using C++ instead of javascript and electron? Would more software be server side only? Would obfuscation be more widely used? Or would everyone accept that that's the norm, which wouldn't be that different from how things were in the early days of computers. I don't doubt that if copyright was suddenly one day canceled companies would use every possibility to claw back privileges they had before. Once something is given it's hard to take away.