3 ms·
No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution. OSS licenses are fully p
by MattPalmer1086 5d ago
No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution.
OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".
- necovek 5d agoI am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
- MattPalmer1086 5d agoIt is interesting that a philosophy opposed to ownership and restriction of control has pretty much the most controlling terms of any OSS license - to the extent it is usually banned in any commercial software development. I do understand the copy left rationale - to ensure the freedom to modify and for the community to benefit from those modifications, it is necessary to use the machinery of control!