[Jack Daniels]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/open-source-software-who-needs-intellectual-property/

If you're on Facebook or Twitter, spread the word!

[Ambassador]

That kinda misses the point.  Free-as-in-freedom software isn't uncopyrightable software as he describes it.  The purpose of it is the provide a copyright/copyleft to allow all who use these program to have access to certain software freedoms.  GNU.org goes into more deeply, but simply calling it open-source software misses the point.  Open-source software does not necessarily mean the software is Free-as-in-freedom.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Yeah, that article lost me at the first sentence. The reason copyleft exists is because of copyright. Copyright licenses like GPL use copyright law to obligate people who modify open-source software to make their own modifications available under the same license. Don't believe me? Ask Richard Stallman.

[Sean Hunt]

That kinda misses the point.  Free-as-in-freedom software isn't uncopyrightable software as he describes it.  The purpose of it is the provide a copyright/copyleft to allow all who use these program to have access to certain software freedoms.  GNU.org goes into more deeply, but simply calling it open-source software misses the point.  Open-source software does not necessarily mean the software is Free-as-in-freedom.

GNU, and by that I mean Richard Stallman, has a very strong view towards software that is not particularly conducive to anything. Unfortunately, I can't really endorse the GNU position. The Creative Commons - which has a more moderate approach, is a better model, in my opinion.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Personally, I prefer to release my work into the public domain. I don't see any point in hassling others with restrictions on work for which I have no further use. But copyleft licenses certainly have their place.