Copyright Left - ForkLog: cryptocurrencies, AI, singularity, future

# Author's left

Why copyleft has become especially important nowadays

At one time, copyright was a progressive idea that changed the logic of creating and consuming products of creative activity: the author of a book or, for example, music became equal to their work and received corresponding income. However, the humanistic foundation underlying this legal concept began to crumble when it was discovered that it provided fertile ground for abuses and the generation of unjustified super profits.

ForkLog suggests recalling how copyright has mutated into a control tool, and why many creative people choose a radical alternative — copyleft.

"Corporate Walled Gardens"

The technological world increasingly resembles a dystopia in the spirit of cyberpunk or even Kafka. Users are forced to interact with reality, often unaware of its rules. A phone refuses to work with a non-original battery, demanding repairs only at an authorized center at an inflated price. A car offers to activate the seat heating for a paid subscription, otherwise this functionality will be remotely blocked. A cloud service for designers can change the terms of the license at any moment, making thousands of work projects inaccessible without expensive renewal.

This is not a series of system failures, but its new architecture. A model in which the user has transformed from an owner into a renter of personal data and devices. Corporations create "walled gardens" — closed ecosystems that are difficult and expensive to exit. At the core of this model lies vendor lock-in — the dependence on the provider that makes the client dependent.

The foundation of these unequal relations is closed source code. Programs and operating systems are delivered in the form of a "black box": the user cannot check whether there are vulnerabilities in the code, whether data is being leaked to third parties, and whether the functionality of the device is artificially restricted. A striking example is Apple's "component binding" policy: the company programmatically blocks the operation of non-original spare parts, trying to monopolize the repair market.

Originally, copyright was created to protect authors from unauthorized copying of their works. But in the hands of corporations, it has mutated into a tool of control. By enclosing code with licensing agreements, they prohibit not only its copying but also any study, modification, and improvement. The source code has become accessible only to the caste of "initiates" — corporate developers.

The user agreement (EULA), which most accept without reading, legally enshrines this powerlessness. Any attempt to "look under the hood" of the program or to bypass artificial limitations is declared illegal. Thus, the legal mechanism for protecting creativity has become a tool for building digital monopolies based on enforced ignorance.

Gnosis of the code

The mechanism of copyleft goes deeper than legal subtleties. At its core lies the philosophical principle that true freedom is impossible without knowledge of the source of genuine reality. The proprietary world is one where the "source code of existence" is hidden. Users see only the consequences, not understanding the causes, and are forced to trust the dogmas set forth in the EULA.

Copyleft asserts everyone's right to direct knowledge. The source code becomes publicly available text that can be studied, interpreted, and modified. This principle requires not only knowledge of the source (access to the code), but also its recognition — acknowledging its nature and carrying it forward. The idea of copyleft was formulated by Richard Stallman. Its essence, laid out in licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL), grants four freedoms:

1. The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program ( works, know the source ), and modify it.
3. The freedom to distribute copies.
4. The freedom to improve the program and publish changes, while keeping access to the source for others to learn and acknowledge the source.

The key condition is "inheritance". Anyone who modifies a program under the GPL license and distributes it is obliged to provide the source code of their version under the same license. One cannot acquire knowledge and hide it — code that has become free remains so forever.

The power of copyleft is not in theory, but in practice. It is this principle that has allowed projects to be launched that not only compete with the products of billion-dollar corporations but also surpass them.

Linux: the core of the operating system, created by Linus Torvalds and released under the GPL license. It has become the heart of the planet's digital infrastructure. Most web servers, supercomputers, billions of Android smartphones, and a multitude of Internet of Things devices run on Linux. This success would not have been possible without copyleft, which compelled giants like Google, IBM, and Oracle to contribute improvements back to the common, well-known source.

Conflict over AI: artificial intelligence poses new challenges. Systems like GitHub Copilot are trained on billions of lines from open repositories, including code under the GPL license. This has generated a legal conflict: should a program generated by AI based on open source also carry its "gene" of freedom?

Corporations versus the community: the conflict can be illustrated with a striking example. One development company created a popular open-source system. Initially, its code was distributed under a free license that imposed no strict obligations on users. A large cloud provider took advantage of this work, created its own commercial service based on it, and began to compete directly with the original developer. At the same time, it did not contribute to the development of the original project. In response, the creator company was forced to switch to a stricter license. This was done to protect the project from those who use others' work for commercial purposes but refuse to support its authors and the community.

Choice matters

Choosing software is not just a technical decision. It is a political and economic act. Installing proprietary software is equivalent to voting with money and personal data for the model of "digital dictatorship."

The use of free software under copyleft licenses supports an ecosystem based on transparency, collaboration, and control over digital tools. For a developer, publishing code under the GPL license is a direct contribution to creating "digital communities," a public space free from corporate control.

Copyleft is a working mechanism that returns technology under the control of users. It is the foundation for building a future in which knowledge of the digital source is an inherent right, not a paid privilege.