But isn't the permissive licences such as MIT, GPLv3, CopyLeft etc. also a disruption to copyright? Yes the original author will retain copyright, but the intent of it, to prevent free distribution and collaboration disappears.
Now we see the mighty MS open sourcing the server side of .NET. IMO they are forced to do so because of the pressure from awesome platforms like Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.JS etc. that would soon make them irrelevant unless they follow suit.
In 50 years time, the best creative work both art, writing and tech will be available freely on permissive licences, and we won't care if it enters the public domain, even though it probably will anyway.
The great thing is the stuff you need (tools, information) is available this way. The stuff you want but don't need (awful Hollywood films, etc.) is protected by copyright and you have to pay for it.
Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).
GPLv3 and "copyleft" are not permissive licenses. They are copyleft licenses. MIT, BSD, etc. are permissive licenses.
Aside from that, there is a considerable difference between public domain and 'freely licensed'. The latter involves an absolute nightmare of tracking down licenses and understanding the interactions between licenses, when working on a project of significant size (and influence). And licenses like the GPL make this even harder by being very restrictive.
> Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).
The majority of music on Youtube is not there legally.
Now we see the mighty MS open sourcing the server side of .NET. IMO they are forced to do so because of the pressure from awesome platforms like Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.JS etc. that would soon make them irrelevant unless they follow suit.
In 50 years time, the best creative work both art, writing and tech will be available freely on permissive licences, and we won't care if it enters the public domain, even though it probably will anyway.
The great thing is the stuff you need (tools, information) is available this way. The stuff you want but don't need (awful Hollywood films, etc.) is protected by copyright and you have to pay for it.
Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).