@sicp @vulonkaaz @Suiseiseki > People I know who have an overall objection to copyright tend to prefer public domain over copyleft.

Too many broken countries don't have such a thing, and the alternatives don't focus enough on the importance of the Four Freedoms.

Some creative commons licenses are even non-Free.

> I have no issue with copyright when it is used to uphold one's right to copy things he comes into possession of, or preserve the authors within a derivative work.

"Copyright" is generally a misnomer, it's "copy authorization monopoly". Preserving the right of people to replicate, share, remix and build upon information & art is not its purpose.

I of course approve of the latter. As for preserving the authors(' information & crediting), I do consider that proper crediting is just good etiquette (it can also be useful for later research & whatever that one may undertake).

> For instance when you acquire and modify software that is free, you're under no obligation to share it with anyone.

That is true.

> However, I also believe that free publication of all research should be a component of legal conduct for public scientific and academic institutions, and I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to operate while marketing proprietary research.

It certainly should be. Privatization of such things which ought to be public commons has been a disaster.

Certainly for any public institutions or public funding, it should be mandatory that the public then benefit of it in its entirety.