[bo1024]

I have mixed feelings about this, not sure exactly where I stand.[1] I think I might be ethically okay with a world without copyright control on code, especially because you could sign contracts governing how people use your code in exchange for revealing it to them. But it would take a lot of getting used to.

[1] Personally, I've put a few small open-source projects online and do take the stance that people can use them however they want, I assert no control over their use (I request attribution). But I don't make money from writing code so I'm not saying I think everyone else should do this.

[tptacek]

No, you couldn't. A contract that binds on someone after they obtain your source code is a license. In the coherent version of your world, once you've revealed your source code to someone, you can't stop them from publishing it to everybody else for free.

[hundt]

I mean, the license could have a nondisclosure/confidentiality agreement, right?

That wouldn't be a full substitute for copyright though. For example, if they broke the contract and distributed the code I don't think you could prevent other people from distributing it further.

[tptacek]

If you believe in contracts that selectively release source code for a fee subject to nondisclosure and other limitations on redistribution, you effectively believe in copyright. At most, you're saying that the default should be an unlimited right to redistribution. But that's not especially meaningful, because opting away from that default would be trivial, and practically every professional musician would do so immediately.

[bo1024]

So copyright is redundant with legal structures already in place...? (Meant to be tongue-in-cheek)