It's interesting to see how much the FOSS developer community (or rather, the people in this thread who are complaining about this article as if it's part-and-parcel with supporting FOSS) has confused the idea that software should be libre with the idea that it should also be gratis. That's unfortunately not their last mistake, as it seems then also want to extend this to an idea that other copyrightable works should be gratis, too.
The Software Freedoms [0] don't mean you get to scarper off with other people's hard work. They mean that, once you have paid and received permission to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.
Software is a thing that we use to get work done, a thing that doesn't necessarily work correctly or sufficiently or whatever other reason you might want to change it. We have a need to protect the rights of users because, without said rights, the user could potentially end up in a situation where their livelihood is significantly impacted by the failing software.
A work of art, on the other hand, is meant for consumption. You can't make a photo so integral to your workflow that replacing it with another photo could be detrimental to your self. Most programs are not reasonable substitutes for each other. Most photos of bumblebees are--more or less--perfectly acceptable substitutes, not because all photographers are equivalent and interchangeable, but because your need to have that photo is not more important than the photographer's need to eat.
The Software Freedoms are not about copyright. Copyright is just the mechanism through which the GPL operates, in an ideology that believes that software should not be copyrightable. It's the belief that these two things are so fundamentally different, that copyright is not the appropriate means to protect software developers, that led to the creation of the GPL. The GPL is nothing more than a hack on top of the copyright system to make copyright--for software--useless. It is not an overall indictment of copyright.
I have to admit that I once thought essentially the same thing that you have written. However, I'm not so sure now. I think Software Freedom is distinct from copyright and while copyright in its current form is a problem for Software Freedom (insofar as it is too restrictive), doing away with copyright does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are concerned with Software Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all move to CC0 from GPL and be happy.
I am not one of those who would espouse that all FOSS software should use unrestrictive licenses. CC0, or attribution based Free software licenses definitely have their place, but I think that the world would be poorer without a license like the GPL. The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules. If someone wants to compete against a GPLed project, they either have to play by the same rules or build their own project from the ground up.
Instead of "copyright or not copyright", I think the Free software movement has shown that there is a range of restrictions that can be beneficial. Picking the appropriate restrictions for your project is an incredibly important task. When looking at CC (Creative Commons) licenses, I think it becomes a bit more obvious what things are valuable. They definitely benefitted from being able to look at the history of Free Software development when these licenses were developed.
I know there is a growing movement of people who are extremely enthusiastic about very unrestrictive licenses. However, I can't help thinking that they miss something -- only thinking about a binary world of very restrictive (all rights reserved) and non restrictive (at best attribution only). To be honest, I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works. Of course it isn't. Even in a world without copyright, this would not happen because lacking legal means, companies would pursue technical means of making it difficult to make derived works. Because of this I tend to license my work as GPL because I know a thriving, fair community can be served this way. The restrictions (made possible by copyright) are valuable.
doing away with copyright does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are concerned with Software Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all move to CC0 from GPL and be happy.
that's wrong. FSF is concerned with preserving software users' freedoms. abolishing the copyright without further changes to the legal landscape would have terrible consequences for those rights: even though you would be able to sell copies of any (say) software no matter how you procured it, you wouldn't get the source and wouldn't have the freedom to modify it for your needs.
The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules.
that's true, but we don't need copyright to ensure creative works users' rights. the GPL is a hack, using the copyright (law meant to restrict your copying rights) to subvert those who try take away your right to copy. we don't need copyright for that any more than we need copyright to have other public goods funded by taxes, for example. all that is needed is a law codifying the software users' freedoms formulated in the GPL.
I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works.
>They mean that, once you have paid and received permission to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.
Including reselling the work. This is one part I don't understand. One person pays full price and sells it to everybody else at a lower price, until the product is free as in, yes, free beer.
The Software Freedoms [0] don't mean you get to scarper off with other people's hard work. They mean that, once you have paid and received permission to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.
Software is a thing that we use to get work done, a thing that doesn't necessarily work correctly or sufficiently or whatever other reason you might want to change it. We have a need to protect the rights of users because, without said rights, the user could potentially end up in a situation where their livelihood is significantly impacted by the failing software.
A work of art, on the other hand, is meant for consumption. You can't make a photo so integral to your workflow that replacing it with another photo could be detrimental to your self. Most programs are not reasonable substitutes for each other. Most photos of bumblebees are--more or less--perfectly acceptable substitutes, not because all photographers are equivalent and interchangeable, but because your need to have that photo is not more important than the photographer's need to eat.
The Software Freedoms are not about copyright. Copyright is just the mechanism through which the GPL operates, in an ideology that believes that software should not be copyrightable. It's the belief that these two things are so fundamentally different, that copyright is not the appropriate means to protect software developers, that led to the creation of the GPL. The GPL is nothing more than a hack on top of the copyright system to make copyright--for software--useless. It is not an overall indictment of copyright.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html