Sounds good. I'll just make a closed source version of the Linux kernel now.

(Copyleft is based around intellectual property.)

I can't see it ever happening, but a government forcing everyone to distribute the sources and rights to redistribute/modify along with their works pretty clearly abolishes intellectual property.

As a lesser thought: currently, when you publish a book in the US, you are legally required to send a copy to the Library of Congress. I could see the same thing working for software, requiring a submission of source code to some central publicly-accessible digital library. No licencing requirements beyond "people can read this," but that'd still be an unearthly boon to, say, security researchers.

Good luck in your endeavor!

Copyright is necessary for open source?

That's a complete non-sequitur.

If there are no intellectual property laws, nothing will change, except peoples ability to sue each other.

How does the ability to sue help open source?

Could we really tell the difference between that and the current model of having locked down devices that you can't upgrade running closed source kernel modules?

Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What fucking baby?

Everything intellectual property does is bad. It's a monopoly on an idea. It's insane.

Argument by swearing is kind of weak. There is plenty of evidence we've gone too far towards producers in terms of intellectual property, but eliminating everything: copyright, trademarks and all patents seems like it might require a bit more than a few F bombs to back up your point.

Ditto.