[arccy]

copyleft is less free than permissive. noone should be compelled to share their work if they don't want to.

[lovich]

But we collectively should be compelled to protect it under IP law?

I’m personally completely fine(legally not morally) with people or organizations who want to keep trade secrets secret, but not if they also want society to protect anyone copying their work. The tradeoff is you show society how to accomplish your innovation and we’ll guarantee you profits for X years with the might of law

Edit: this was in response to the comment about no one should be compelled to share their work. I don’t know enough about the nuances of copyleft vs permissive licenses to have useful commentary

[rakoo]

Individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is only effective if collective freedom is aimed and enforced. Having the freedom to live under a roof at the condition that you have enough money isn't something I'd consider actual freedom, and yet someone is free to restrict access to land and empty housing. That is plain stupid for a healthy society

[beeflet]

the "freedom" being limited in this case is the freedom to privatize otherwise public work

[arccy]

privatise your additional work on top of the public work. the public work doesn't stop being public.

[rini17]

In theory. In practice it does stop being public because it is either sold or used as a leverage as a whole, public and private parts together.