Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend’s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post declaring, “delete all IP law.”

X’s current owner Elon Musk quickly replied, “I agree.”

  • @merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 days ago

    The GPL is basically trying to make a world without copyright. The GPL basically only has teeth in a world where copyright exists. If copyright didn’t exist then everything would be in the public domain and the GPL would be toothless, but that’s fine because it would no longer be unnecessary.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 days ago

      No, the GPL very much requires copyright to work. The whole point is copyleft, which obligates changes to the code remain under the same license and be available to everyone.

      Without copyright, companies just wouldn’t share their changes at all. The whole TIVO-ization clause in the GPL v3 would be irrelevant since TIVO can very much take without giving back. Copyright is very much essential to the whole concept of the GPL working.

      Just think, why would anyone want to use Linux if Microsoft or Apple could just bake Linux into their offering?

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 days ago

          If copyright didn’t exist then everything would be in the public domain and the GPL would be toothless, but that’s fine because it would no longer be unnecessary.

          I’m saying it is necessary to achieve the aims of the GPL.

          If it was just about ensuring the source is free, the MIT license would be sufficient. The GPL goes further and forces modifications to also be free, which relies on copyright.

          • @uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            I’m saying it is necessary to achieve the aims of the GPL.

            Which would make GPL toothless, but that’s fine because it would no longer be necessary.

          • @merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 days ago

            I’m saying it is necessary to achieve the aims of the GPL.

            Until copyright no longer exists and everything is in the public domain, as I said.

            How are you going to enforce the GPL in a world where copyright doesn’t exist?

            • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 days ago

              How are you going to enforce the GPL in a world where copyright doesn’t exist?

              And that’s what I’m saying, you can’t, therefore the aims of the GPL cannot be achieved. The GPL was created specifically to force modifications to be shared. The MIT license was created to be as close to public domain as possible, but within a copyright context (the only obligation is to retain the license text on source distributions).

              If everything is public domain, then there would be no functional changes to MIT-licensed code, whereas GPL-licensed code would become a free-for-all with companies no longer being obligated to share their changes.