Copyleft software couldn't exist. But all software would be free by default, because all source would be in the public domain, and all reverse compilation of binaries would produce public domain code.
Also, let's be real - human written (and therefore copyrightable) code is dying already. When the machines can write anything on demand, why do you need a profit motive?
That's like asking why gardeners like to grow food and flowers in their backyards, or why hobbyists like to build furniture in their garages. Some people need a creative outlet. It doesn't mean that a lot of people won't grow food, flowers, or furniture for free, and that there's no demand for food, flowers, or furniture to be bought.
> When the machines can write anything on demand, why do you need a profit motive?
Machines still need humans to power them. They're like any other tools that need direction and guidance, by humans that possess the innate creativity.
> Machines still need humans to power them. They're like any other tools that need direction and guidance, by humans that possess the innate creativity.
Yes but ideas are not copyrightable, only the fixed expression of those ideas in (in this case) written form. If the actual writing of the code is delegated entirely to machines, then software copyrights are dead.
I am not aware of any open-source license which tries to approximate the "there is no copyright" situation:
- Such a license would not compulse you to publish the source code of any modification you make for it.
- Such a license would allow you to distribute compiled programs only.
- On the other hand, such a license must not restrict you to de-compile, modify or re-destribute any binaries built from the source code.
- But any such derivate of such a binary or source code would have to stay under the same license (this is a different kind of virality than "normal" viral licenses).
Public domain is something different from an emulation of "there is no copyright":
You can take public domain material to build some program binary:
- In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary, and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering, ...
- In a "no copyright world", you cannot enforce such restrictions.
IAAL and am pretty familiar with U.S. copyright law, and am curious where support for this proposition in the law is found. Can you provide sources, please?
1. Take some CC0/public domain source code.
2. Build a binary out of it and sell licenses for your software.
Case study: SQLite's source code is public domain. On the other hand, it is embedded in many commercial software products that are sold - and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer the software or redistribute binaries of it. This would be possible/allowed in a no-copyright world.