Copyfree is not the new copyleft.
blog.appamatto.com
blog.appamatto.com
"I can’t distribute my program without also distributing its sources if it contains a copyleft component."
Well that's perfectly fair if that's what the original author wants. If you want to distribute derived work from my copyrighted material, I've decided let you do that without paying me or even talking to me as long as you follow some rules (maybe the GPL, whatever). You are of course free to contact me and negotiate a different deal. You are, after all, wanting to use MY copyrighted code to build something and distribute it.
"Copyleft also contains all the asymmetry of copyright: licensees will have their right to silence violated but the original creator can go ahead and create proprietary derivatives."
If I write code, of course I'm free to distribute it however I want. I can grant various permissions to people normally not available to them due to copyright law. "Licensees" don't have any rights violated - they have whatever rights they chose to accept or negotiate or purchase or whatever when they decided to use my code and what that would imply. In the absencse of that license, they simply can't use my code at all. They are free to write their own. They are also free to contact me and negotiate terms.
I think I'm missing your point though - what is it exactly?
The form of your commentary here seems to assume that appamatto agrees that copyright represents an actual "right". I do not think that assumption is reasonable in this case.
> "Licensees" don't have any rights violated - they have whatever rights they chose to accept or negotiate or purchase or whatever when they decided to use my code and what that would imply. In the absencse of that license, they simply can't use my code at all.
Are you suggesting that there is a basic human right embodied in copyright law, or are you just labeling legal powers and privileges with the term "rights"?
> I think I'm missing your point though - what is it exactly?
If you do not assume that everyone in the world shares your own beliefs about the appropriateness of copyright law, I think you will take a huge step toward understanding appamatto's essay a bit better.
1) _This isn't just a matter of taste._ Choice of license has moral value. Although legally "it's my party and I can GPL if I want to" I don't think this is the case morally, and I try to argue that it the post.
2) _Copyleft is not anti-copyright._ Copyleft imposes additional restrictions that are not possible in a world without copyright. Copyfree (and specifically copyright waivers in countries that allow them) best simulate a world where we can share freely and also choose to withhold freely.
3) _Copyleft is often used specifically to sell proprietary software._ This is because the arrangement between creator and licensees is much more asymmetric in copyleft. If you're directly selling the software you're licensing then you're probably going to need to use a copyleft license.
I think #2 is well known although not often written about, and #1 seems contrary to what people on all sides (copy{right,left,free}) say. I haven't seen #3 written about elsewhere.
Those are my points, did that clarify or muddy?
BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622
It has been addressed elsewhere.