I'm a total GPL fanboy, but that would not only invalidate GPL, but make it legal to disassemble, modify, and redistribute all proprietary software less than 10 years old.

I don't think it's a great thing, or a horrible one; the positive and negative ramifications are difficult to even estimate. The software world that we live in would be vastly different in very many ways.

The GPL was a best effort, given the state of US copyright. There is no dissenting Open Source group who lobbies for the existing state of copyright because they consider the GPL as more important. Another version of the license can be written.

GPL found a way to utilize an evil law to do some good. What we need is to first scrap the evil law, then pass a FOSS protection act. (Besides, a 10 year copyrighted is so long that GPL would still be mostly enforced.)

Open source licenses exist to try and prevent attack on open-source by groups privatizing otherwise freely distributed code. It's an arms race. In a world where copyright's expire on reasonable timeframes, the value of copyleft licenses is vastly reduced since useful code becomes freely available within a reasonable timeframe.

I imagine they'd have to be reimplemented under the new legal framework. Attaching addresses to IP isn't so different from attaching predicates like "must be open".

It just shouldn't converge on takedowns is all I'm saying. No legal paths to censorship.