Regarding your first comment, again, I don't believe that this is a sensible definition of liberty/freedom. Any definition of liberty/freedom that argues for more rules and restrictions should be highly suspect, because liberty/freedom is defined as the absence of restrictions. I see that most of your comments aren't actually about the permissive-copyleft debate, but about copyright in general, so I will address that issue here.

There are several arguments against copyright, libertarian and non-libertarian. The particular libertarian argument against copyright to which I subscribe can be summarized as follows:

1. The only legitimate function of government (and its laws) is the protection of individual rights.
2. Copyright is not actually an individual right, but rather simply a legal invention/tool intended and designed to promote the production of creative works.
3. Therefore, all copyright laws are illegitimate.

(1) is accepted by libertarians, or at least minarchists; (2) is far more obvious, and is mostly contested by the large media companies who have a serious financial interest in justifying copyright as some sort of "natural right".

This is assuming, of course, that copyright even works as it was intended to -- there are arguments even denying its effectiveness, and asserting that more innovation and creative works would arise if copyright were either greatly weakened or altogether abolished. However, I don't even rely on those here, and instead contend simply that protecting copyright is not a legitimate function of government, regardless of its actual benefits.

This doesn't mean that I don't value creative works; it simply means that I oppose using the law and the government to promote their production, however good this may be, because I believe that using the government in such a fashion oversteps its proper function. We can certainly establish private organizations and institutions to promote innovation and creativity, and thereby assist artists in making a living, but I don't believe we can legitimately use the government to accomplish this.

Also, I don't know why you mention plagiarism, because it is a distinct thing from copyright infringement, and could occur with or without the presence of copyright law. I don't think copyright infringement should be illegal, but I never stated that I condoned or was indifferent to plagiarism; I disapprove of it probably as much as you do.

My point in regard to the GPL was not that it is long by absolute standards, but that it is far, far longer than many permissive licenses. It's true that greater detail/more words are required to cover the "circumstantial eventualities and niceties" you mention, but such things are only more likely to materialize with copyleft licenses precisely because those licenses included more conditions than permissive licenses in the first place -- in other words, the copyleft licenses created their own problems, and consequently needed to add more detail/words to cover up the holes they had dug themselves. Perhaps some of the permissive licenses are too short and vague, but even if they were clarified and thus lengthened, I doubt that they would be longer than a typical copyleft license, simply because they have fewer conditions.

I like Microsoft's products for nostalgia reasons, and I greatly admire Bill Gates for his technical skill and knowledge, but this doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do -- in particular, I strongly disagree with the latter's views concerning copyright. I may use Microsoft products, but this doesn't mean I condone their licensing decisions -- I put it on a scale with other things, and it simply turns out that other unrelated considerations (e.g. nostalgia) outweigh my objections to their licensing. I also never stated that the copylefters were hypocrites merely for using/consuming proprietary works made by other people; I called them hypocrites because they claim to defend freedom, yet don't apply the freest licenses to their own works, with some of them also opposing copyright but still participating in that system by using copyleft. I may use Microsoft products, but when it comes to my own works, I always release under an extremely permissive license.

I strongly despise the current abuse of copyright law by corporations; however, I don't hate corporations themselves simply because they are corporations -- this is nothing but a tired, whining attitude of teenage progressives. Abolition of copyright at once solves the issue of abuse, which I think you will agree will be a good thing; I assume here that it will also make it more difficult for individuals to make a living from creative works and thus reduce the quantity of such works (though some opponents of copyright, like I said earlier, will dispute this), which is a bad thing, but my libertarian principles preclude me from supporting the use of the government and the law even to promote something good, because this is outside the scope of its legitimate role.

This document is released under the WTFPL Version 2: http://www.wtfpl.net