We are destroying software to build on top of it over and over again. What could we do instead?
When we build software, we answer three questions: "what?", "how?", and "why?". The answer to what becomes the data (and its structure). The answer to how is the functionality (and the UI/UX that exposes it). The answer to why is...more complicated.
The question why is answered in the process of design and implementation, by every decision in the development process. Each of these decisions becomes a wall of assumption: because it is the designer - not the end user - making that decision.
Very rarely can the end user move or replace walls of assumption. The only real alternative is for the user to alter the original source code such that it answers their why instead.
Collaboration is the ultimate goal. Not just collaboration between people: collaboration between answers. We often call this "compatibility" or "derivative work".
Copyright, at its very core, makes collaboration illegal by default. Want to make CUDA implementation for AMD cards? You must not collaborate with the existing NVIDIA implementation of CUDA, because NVIDIA has a copyright monopoly. You must start over instead. This is NVIDIA's moat.
Of course, even if copyright was not in the way, it would still be challenging to build compatibility without access to source code. It's important to note that NVIDIA's greatest incentive to keep their source code private is so they can leverage the incompatibility that fills their moat. Without the monopoly granted/demanded by copyright, NVIDIA would still have a moat of "proprietary trade secrets", including the source code of their CUDA implementation.
Free software answers this by keeping copyright and turning it the other direction. A copyleft license demands source code is shared so that collaboration is guaranteed to be available. This works exclusively for software that participates, and that is effectively its own wall.
I think we would be better off without copyright. The collaboration we can guarantee through copyleft is huge, but it is clearly outweighed by the oligopoly that rules our society: an oligopoly constructed of moats whose very foundations are the incompatibility that is legally preserved through copyright.
When we build software, we answer three questions: "what?", "how?", and "why?". The answer to what becomes the data (and its structure). The answer to how is the functionality (and the UI/UX that exposes it). The answer to why is...more complicated.
The question why is answered in the process of design and implementation, by every decision in the development process. Each of these decisions becomes a wall of assumption: because it is the designer - not the end user - making that decision.
Very rarely can the end user move or replace walls of assumption. The only real alternative is for the user to alter the original source code such that it answers their why instead.
Collaboration is the ultimate goal. Not just collaboration between people: collaboration between answers. We often call this "compatibility" or "derivative work".
Copyright, at its very core, makes collaboration illegal by default. Want to make CUDA implementation for AMD cards? You must not collaborate with the existing NVIDIA implementation of CUDA, because NVIDIA has a copyright monopoly. You must start over instead. This is NVIDIA's moat.
Of course, even if copyright was not in the way, it would still be challenging to build compatibility without access to source code. It's important to note that NVIDIA's greatest incentive to keep their source code private is so they can leverage the incompatibility that fills their moat. Without the monopoly granted/demanded by copyright, NVIDIA would still have a moat of "proprietary trade secrets", including the source code of their CUDA implementation.
Free software answers this by keeping copyright and turning it the other direction. A copyleft license demands source code is shared so that collaboration is guaranteed to be available. This works exclusively for software that participates, and that is effectively its own wall.
I think we would be better off without copyright. The collaboration we can guarantee through copyleft is huge, but it is clearly outweighed by the oligopoly that rules our society: an oligopoly constructed of moats whose very foundations are the incompatibility that is legally preserved through copyright.