this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
682 points (98.6% liked)
Linux
14869 readers
197 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're conflating open source and free software with public domain. Open source software licenses are completely dependent on software copyright. This means that if software copyright were eliminated, open source licenses would become completely unenforceable. We may be headed in this direction anyway, but I just thought I would make the point.
It has been wild to see Linux users hope that the GPL is rendered unenforceable.
Absolutely!
Why? The entire purpose of GPL is to counteract copyright. If there is no copyright we no longer need GPL either.
The GPL gives you the right to access and modify the source code of software you use. A lack of copyrights does not mean that the creators have to share the source code with you. In fact, it means that anyone can take GPL software and turn it into closed source software
Sure but that's mostly irrelevant in practice now. Gpl was notoriously unenforced so this aspect of "getting source code" almost never yielded to much in practice. FSF did a great job with limited resources it has but as code copyright is basically gone now and reverse engineering is so accessible we can actually empower real free software that is fully transparent and verifiable. If you imply that somehow we'll start regressing existing tools to proprietary software I don't see that at all.
@fruitcantfly @drmoose Just. Wrong. Clearly 'Linux boosted' is a worthless accolade.
What is "Just. Wrong"? And what does the label "Linux boosted" have to do with this?
Copyleft exists only because of copyright. If there is no copyright there's no longer a need for copyleft.
I completely disagree. What's the main thing the GPL does that is different from public domain or the complete absence of copyright?
It restricts how the code can be used in order to protect the writers and the consumers of the code. Without copyright and copyleft, any company can use any GPL code in any proprietary product they want, without sharing any of their changes and without even crediting the original writers. As an example, Microsoft could adopt the Linux kernel for Windows, heavily modify it, sell it, and stay completely silent about it, without any consequences. That's what a world without copyright means for copyleft.
Sure but again this is only a problem if copyright exists. Stallman himself invented GPL due to frustrations of copyright. The permisiveness is default human behavior that was corrupted by evil people and terrible systems. The neutrrance of copyright just returns us to this default state of sharing.
That's not true at all. Like I said, copyleft relies completely on copyright. It was not at all created in opposition to copyright. It was created in opposition to proprietary (i.e., "unfree") software. Here, from the Wikipedia article on Copyleft (emphasis mine):
This is impossible to do without copyright existing. Like I mentioned before, without copyright laws, companies can take any code they wish, with any license, and use it in their proprietary software without sharing their modifications.
Another reference directly from the FSF: "Copyleft is a tool that works within copyright law" (emphasis mine)