> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".
If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?
If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license.
I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also want less dependence on men with guns. Since I want to abolish copyright, I do not like the GPL. The best way to abolish copyright in practice is to use a permissive license.
Do you not need men with guns to enforce your other freedoms, like the freedom of speech under the First Amendment? (I don't know if you're a US citizen.)
We're focusing on a very specific set of freedoms---a subset of all freedoms that individuals should have.
> I want to abolish copyright
We have to work within the system we have, and abolishing copyright is unlikely to happen any time soon. There's things that work now.
In the case of the GPL, we still need copyright to ensure that we can enforce the right for the users' to have their freedoms; otherwise, public domain works can be used in proprietary software.
I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire to abolish copyright but still prefer permissive licenses.
Because otherwise, agreeing to it would not be in any way a step towards abolishment of copyright. It would, in fact, be something more akin to creating a free labour pool you are not willing to opt into yourself. You create a situation where you can profit from their work and they cannot. There's a word for this arrangement.
The only reason to prefer 3-BSD is because public domain isn't recognized worldwide. I'll agree that there should probably be something about software patents in there, those are stupid.
If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue. All it does is to write down that specific aspect into an enforceable contract. Contract don't need to use men with guns if everyone choose to honor it, which was the historically method used back when people lived in tribes and villages made out of a handful houses. No one would dare to break their word, risking that others would start to do the same.
The best option would of course be that the law was changed and IP abolished by political change. Copyleft and permissive licenses would go away, artist could stand on the shoulders of giants without fear, and compensation would be addressed before the art was made rather than afterward. A fitting end to the flame wars.
Anarchy is the lack of laws, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
Freedom need laws, because the alternative is the law of nature.