Anyone who cares about open source by definition cares about copyright. That’s what the concepts of free software and open source software are built upon.

I will continue to release my code without a license, glad that it makes corporations and their drones seethe.

That just means you have full and complete ownership, so you’re sharing non-open source, non-free software code, also known as proprietary code. That has literally no impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that means.

> That has literally no impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that means.

It does if they want to use his code for anything. The parent commenter is also clearly making the point that his efforts are to be used by people who share the same sentiment of "fuck copyright". Which I think is a noble perspective, since IP laws in the US are much more bad than good.

They are releasing proprietary software, that’s the default state, not an act of rebellion against copyright systems. Free software is by itself a middle finger to copyright. Releasing code without license isn’t.

Wow.

Free software movement abuses the copyright system to prevent anyone from “owning” the software and putting a fence around others' work when greed tells it's suitable to do so. It has no intention to support its existence. As people only have that mediocre system today, and believe in it, it is used as a tool to partially formalize something from a different sphere of values.

I think you misread my comment, at no point did I express that free software intents to support the existence of copyright. But free software and open source are obviously built on top of the copyright system, as you said (they are a kind of hack). So you obviously care about copyright frameworks and their various implementations if you care about open source/free software.

One can totally care about an illness, but not CARE about it much.

Are you thinking of the GPL? There are other open source licenses.