this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
11 points (72.0% liked)
Linux
13631 readers
1030 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have seen this being said, but I really don't understand it. Just because copyright can be abused doesn't mean (to me) that we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If copyright no longer exists, what incentive do people have to share copyleft code at all? It clearly would no longer exist, so can you help me understand how both copyright can be dead and open source exist? Or are you simply accepting that rather than copyright, we are using trade secrets (like the KFC chicken recipe) to protect works?
Copyright is a mistake. It shouldn't exist.
I have seen this sentiment, but I don't know what the world looks like without copyright protections for creative works.
Does open source exist in your vision? How?
My imagination for this topic may not be as expansive as yours, but my interpretation is that if people contribute code to the commons, it will immediately available for any use - including for use by massive corporations.
So it ends up looking like people working for big companies for free.
But any source code leak is also open sourcing in that world.
You cannot prevent someone from "hacking" the hardware they buy to use it from a PC instead of being forced to use an app.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I understand it.
I don't see how that helps free software, though. Those programmers got paid. Volunteers didn't.
It ends up with a weird reverse robin hood situation. LLM vendors steal from the poor, sell that to the rich. Do the rich give back? Only if it is stolen from them.