Hacker News Reader

No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution.

OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".

View on HN

I am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html

It is interesting that a philosophy opposed to ownership and restriction of control has pretty much the most controlling terms of any OSS license - to the extent it is usually banned in any commercial software development.

I do understand the copy left rationale - to ensure the freedom to modify and for the community to benefit from those modifications, it is necessary to use the machinery of control!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com