2 ms·

This is ridiculous. Copyleft is just a gimmic pun word not an actually different thing or a negation of anything. GPL and copyleft ARE copyright, exactly the sa

This is ridiculous. Copyleft is just a gimmic pun word not an actually different thing or a negation of anything. GPL and copyleft ARE copyright, exactly the same as all other copyright. The GPL depends on the the validity of the premis that the creator of something gets to set the terms for how they give it to anyone else. The terms just happen to be something other than the usual cash. Anyone who doesn't think copyright should exist at all, doesn't even specify any licence or they specify public domain or mit or similar. By specifying GPL, you declare your right to set the terms of copying.

globular-toast 2y ago
Sigh... Your confrontational tone tells me you won't care, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt (plus maybe someone else will). You can't just "not copyright" something nor can you "opt out" of copyright. Many countries don't even have a concept of public domain at all. But even if you could, if someone takes the work and alters it in any way it is immediately under copyright again. Copyright came from a different time. It was invented due to the printing press around 500 years ago. Its purpose was essentially to protect authors (the many) from the owners of printing presses (the few). Now it's used by a few to extract money from the masses. So, the only tool we have to effectively "opt out" of copyright is copyleft. This stops copyright being able to attach itself again, which can and does happen to public domain or permissive works. It's a funny twist, but that's the way it is. Silly laws require silly solutions.
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  Sigh... I did not say anyone could actually opt out. I said what someone who did not accept the very premis of copyright would or should logically be expected to do. They would not participate in the thing they don't recognize. If everyone else gives their works a default copyright, that's everyone else's problem, they didn't do it. But GPL is ver definitely not that. It is not subverting or perverting or sabotaging copyright, it IS a bog standard employment of the right to set the terms over a thing that you believe you have the right to set the terms for, and you have very definite ideas about what you want and don't want other people to be allowed to do. When I choose GPL for something, make no mistake that the reason I do so is because those are the terms I want to enforce. I want to impose exactly the limits it imposes. That is my payment for the product. I am using copyright for it's intended (or at least advertised) purpose, not trying take a notch out of the concept of copyright because I don't believe in the validity of copyright.

globular-toast 2y ago

Sigh... Your confrontational tone tells me you won't care, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt (plus maybe someone else will). You can't just "not copyright" something nor can you "opt out" of copyright. Many countries don't even have a concept of public domain at all. But even if you could, if someone takes the work and alters it in any way it is immediately under copyright again. Copyright came from a different time. It was invented due to the printing press around 500 years ago. Its purpose was essentially to protect authors (the many) from the owners of printing presses (the few). Now it's used by a few to extract money from the masses. So, the only tool we have to effectively "opt out" of copyright is copyleft. This stops copyright being able to attach itself again, which can and does happen to public domain or permissive works. It's a funny twist, but that's the way it is. Silly laws require silly solutions.

Brian_K_White 2y ago
Sigh... I did not say anyone could actually opt out. I said what someone who did not accept the very premis of copyright would or should logically be expected to do. They would not participate in the thing they don't recognize. If everyone else gives their works a default copyright, that's everyone else's problem, they didn't do it. But GPL is ver definitely not that. It is not subverting or perverting or sabotaging copyright, it IS a bog standard employment of the right to set the terms over a thing that you believe you have the right to set the terms for, and you have very definite ideas about what you want and don't want other people to be allowed to do. When I choose GPL for something, make no mistake that the reason I do so is because those are the terms I want to enforce. I want to impose exactly the limits it imposes. That is my payment for the product. I am using copyright for it's intended (or at least advertised) purpose, not trying take a notch out of the concept of copyright because I don't believe in the validity of copyright.