I have to admit that I once thought essentially the same thing that you have written. However, I'm not so sure now. I think Software Freedom is distinct from

I have to admit that I once thought essentially the same thing that you have written. However, I'm not so sure now. I think Software Freedom is distinct from copyright and while copyright in its current form is a problem for Software Freedom (insofar as it is too restrictive), doing away with copyright does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are concerned with Software Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all move to CC0 from GPL and be happy. I am not one of those who would espouse that all FOSS software should use unrestrictive licenses. CC0, or attribution based Free software licenses definitely have their place, but I think that the world would be poorer without a license like the GPL. The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules. If someone wants to compete against a GPLed project, they either have to play by the same rules or build their own project from the ground up. Instead of "copyright or not copyright", I think the Free software movement has shown that there is a range of restrictions that can be beneficial. Picking the appropriate restrictions for your project is an incredibly important task. When looking at CC (Creative Commons) licenses, I think it becomes a bit more obvious what things are valuable. They definitely benefitted from being able to look at the history of Free Software development when these licenses were developed. I know there is a growing movement of people who are extremely enthusiastic about very unrestrictive licenses. However, I can't help thinking that they miss something -- only thinking about a binary world of very restrictive (all rights reserved) and non restrictive (at best attribution only). To be honest, I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works. Of course it isn't. Even in a world without copyright, this would not happen because lacking legal means, companies would pursue technical means of making it difficult to make derived works. Because of this I tend to license my work as GPL because I know a thriving, fair community can be served this way. The restrictions (made possible by copyright) are valuable.