So it'd just be copyright again? Fascinating.
> EFF is generally not very pro-copyright
I thought you and the other replies downthread of your comment were referring to the current implementation of copyright, rather than the concept of copyright. From what I've read, EFF generally supports the concept of copyright. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. In my reply to dgellow's comment, which included
> copyright is what enables FLOSS to exist in the first place
, I was simply arguing that the current implementation of copyright theoretically could be reduced overall in a way that would not weaken the legal power of FLOSS licenses.
I still think you have misinterpreted EFF's stance on copyright, whether you meant copyright as a concept or copyright as implemented.