this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
197 points (97.1% liked)

Linux

14826 readers
1182 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone -5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Code is rather expressive, it's copyright-able for good reason, you can often tell who wrote what via the style and the way the code was written, and the methods used.

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree entirely. I grew up when the conversation around if code should even be copyrightable was happening, and at the time to an extent it made some sense, but the entire copy left movement was intended to combat the copyright of code in the name of open source because copy righting code is both stupid and baseless. Imagine if for loops were copyrighted? That's what you're essentially arguing unless there's some sort of vague subjective measure you're using to determine when something is copyrightable. The entire thing is just oppressive and does not help the people involved that actually deserve benefit and protection. I'm not saying to cut lose and allow rampant theft but copyright as currently designed and implemented is objectively broken and untooled to the tasks of today, stifling innovation and protecting corporate interests above creators and actual developers.

[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Copyleft is a form of copyright, if you're against copyright that's MIT/BSD 0 clause. Also languages aren't typically copyrighted, it's works created within those languages. Although I do agree copyright is kinda very broken, but creators of code do deserve protections, as code is very expressive. I am also a FOSS dev who loves copyleft, which only functions under copyright.