This isn't really true when software is distributed in binary form - or, increasingly, run on servers and not distributed at all. The outcome Stallman wanted is that end users would have the ability to fix bugs, and add new features, in software they were using. If software is uncopyrightable then that removes one barrier, but not necessarily the most severe one; if you're relying on cloud software whose actual implementation kept as a trade secret (for example) then you still can't fix the problems that are disrupting your workflow.

> If Github's interpretation of copyright law holds, we can train a model on proprietary code and extract concepts without having to worry about being tainted. The proprietary code itself won't enter the commons, but the ideas it embodies will. No more worries about whether you're literally copying the code that implements an algorithm you want to duplicate - simply start typing and let the model remove the risk for you.

I think the closest analogy is to source code leaks like the famous Windows 2000 one. Would having such leaks be non-copyrightable help free software? I doubt it - even a deliberately released "code dump" is still difficult to learn much from, and even free-software projects have to put a lot of time and effort into documenting their code structure, having a contributor onboarding process and so on. The value of the GPL isn't that it forces people to make their raw code available - "hostile" (L)GPL code, like early WebKit or xlvns, has never made for successful projects - the value is that it creates an environment where people are actually cooperating on software development in a positive way. I think that's more likely to happen in a world where you can only use Copilot-like tools if your software is free than in a world where no such rule exists.