• Bora M. Alper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    12 days ago

    Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.

    It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.

    Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.

    • Aux@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.

      • CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.

        • Aux@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 days ago

          As someone who has extensive experience with decompiling, I can say that working with binaries is usually a lot easier than with a source code.