The issue with ditching the copyright is that you have no guarantee that they won't make a proprietary fork (if you use a copy left license). But if you don't care about the copyright you almost certainly don't care about ensuring the perpetual freedom of users.
Ignoring the issues with public domain (that it doesn't exist in many places, so the default you-cant-do-anything copyright rules apply), you misunderstand what I mean by freedom in perpetuity. If someone can take your code and make it proprietary (as well as adding some enticing features), your code is now used to take away users freedom -- even though your original code was free software.
Copyleft is the only defence against that form of attack on user freedom -- attack by distribution.
> your code is now used to take away users freedom
No it's not. My code is still available to any who want it.
Other modifications made to my code may not be free, but that isn't my code, so your statement is incorrect.
Sounds like you're contorting the perspective.
What's ridiculous is that you're presupposing that I don't care about "perpetual freedom." But I do---that's why I released the code into the public domain.
What you seem to be talking about is something quite a bit different. I guess it's, "perpetual freedom of my code and any other modifications distributed by others."
But that doesn't sound as good, now does it? Your phrasing makes it look like I'm so ogre, which is why it's ridiculous and why it's misleading. Your phrasing is also convenient to certain philosophical leanings among programmers, which potentially makes it disingenuous.
I'm assuming 'burntsushi is familiar with that line of argument, and disagrees about the philosophical meaning of "perpetual freedom of users" here. :) I think it's disingenuous to claim that someone doesn't care about freedom when they care about it under a different worldview (and also disingenuous, on the other side, to respond as if your worldview was the only one.) You both know what copyleft is and that some people prefer simple permissive licenses, I'm pretty sure.
I'm sure they are, but for some reason they used the term "public domain" which is a concept that only exists in a few western countries. And talking about how "the original code is free" misses the point that nothing stops someone from enslaving users using your software. While we may have different world views, arguing that you like permissive licenses while stating that you care about perpetual user freedom is having your cake and eating it.
To be fair, even accepting the ideological world view of the FSF, copyleft licenses also don't create perpetual freedom in the absence of perpetual copyright and unlimited copyright. As long as there are temporal and other limits on copyright, copyleft licenses do not provide "perpetual user freedom" under the standard you are applying, because it is legally possible for people to later create derivatives of the code that do not respect user freedoms, or, to use your inflammatory language, "nothing stops someone from enslaving users with your software".
One of the world's most popular pieces of software is distributed under the public domain. I used that term to emphasize the extent to which I care about freedom.
> And talking about how "the original code is free" misses the point
It doesn't miss the point. That the original code is free is a crucial and important point. It just may not be the extent to what you care about, but your phrasing suggests otherwise.
> enslaving users using your software
Enslaving? Oh please.
> arguing that you like permissive licenses while stating that you care about perpetual user freedom is having your cake and eating it.
That's FSF doublethink, plain and simple. Co-opting the word "freedom" was one of the most genius marketing ploys ever done. It's such an overloaded term that nobody will notice, but it's such an enticing term to use to brow beat anyone who disagrees with you into freedom hating slaveowners.
I think we have a misunderstanding of the term "perpetual freedom". When I use it, I'm referring to all modifications to the particular piece of software (because forks can replace the original, which has happened in the past). When you use it, you're referring to a single source of that software.
Personally, I don't think that a single source being free captures the point of the word "perpetual" -- it surviving forever (across forks and other changes to the project). When eventually a project you work on is abandoned, someone could fork it and make it proprietary (adding features along the way). When someone then downloads the newer fork of the software, they've had their freedom taken away -- it doesn't matter that the software was free initially.
Why doesn't it happen with SQLite? I think it probably does, it's just that the creators don't care about that (and they're at liberty to do that). But one of the largest operating systems in the world (GNU/Linux) is created using many components under the GPL. So cherry-picking projects doesn't help either of our cases (and there are many more high-profile projects under copyleft licenses than in the public domain).
> (because forks can replace the original, which has happened in the past)
This is the kind of subversive language that I take issue with. Once I release a piece of code, it exists now and forever, until its bits are deleted from every last storage medium. A fork has nothing to do with that code's existence. It may be the case that a fork gains favor and is more widely used than the original piece of software, but the original piece of software still exists and is perpetually free.
> Personally, I don't think that a single source being free captures the point of the word "perpetual"
I'm not taking issue with your ideas (in this thread, anyway). I'm taking issue with your phrasing and the way you've expressed your ideas. I thought I was pretty clear on that. You're using words like "enslaving" and "they don't care about freedom," which is just a way to discredit, shame and condescend those that don't share your beliefs. It's a classic debate tactic.
> Why doesn't it happen with SQLite? I think it probably does, it's just that the creators don't care about that (and they're at liberty to do that). But one of the largest operating systems in the world (GNU/Linux) is created using many components under the GPL. So cherry-picking projects doesn't help either of our cases (and there are many more high-profile projects under copyleft licenses than in the public domain).
It is unbelievable how much you're twisting my words. I called out SQLite as an example that public domain is in wide use beyond a "few western countries", which was a response to your snubbing your nose at my terminology. Like public domain is some obscure thing? Well, no, actually, it's used by one of the most popular software projects in the world. How could it still be obscure? That was my point.
The idea that I cited SQLite as some kind of evidence that public domain is "better" than copyleft is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that you implied that I argued that "X doesn't happen to SQLite." I didn't.
