could rein it in again, but perhaps we should just abolish it. My point was, if it's _not_ property (or not copyrightable), then what the GPL attempts to prohibit (which, implicitly, by objecting to the GPL one is trying to be able to do or enable one's users to do) is impossible anyway and the whole thing is vacuous. This sentence conflates multiple issues. I have already stated that I believe that if copyright were abolished, both RMS and I would be much happier than with the current state of affairs. But abolishment of copyright wouldn't force me to hand over source code; it would merely let others copy my executables and attempt to reverse-engineer my source without fear of legal repercussion. But an objection to the GPL only makes sense with functional copyright laws. With functional copyright, I cannot write a piece of code and link it to GPLed code without placing restrictions on my downstream users (e.g. always make the source available to this and anything else you link to it). Without functional copyright laws, this problem of the GPL goes away. And if it _is_, then you've made no case that the writers of the GPL'd software shouldn't have the right to do what they do, They absolutely have the legal right to do what they do. I have never argued otherwise. Morality is a bit trickier. There is a difference between "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (which is how permissive