No, ending proprietary software does not end copyright. Even after reading your arguments, I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.
You argued quite the opposite, in fact, by claiming copyright (and not license terms) ensures open source software.
It is entirely possible to ban proprietary software in cases of human rights and public interest (e.g., open source medical firmware, to use the OP case) while maintaining copyright law even as it exists now.
Exactly.
Proprietary software and software patents need to end. In the case of medical devices, such restrictions violate the ADA by blocking access to reasonable accomodations.
I wonder if the inherent public domain nature of genAI output will lead to licensing issues and forced code releases in the future.
Someone would have to prove slop code was used; but the same copyright issues with slop art apply, with the added complication of obscured licensing terms.
Where I work, genAI tools are banned because we do contracts that involve transfer of ownership with disclosure of third-party source. The lawyers state that, genAI's removal of attribution, it runs afoul of the disclosure requirement. It's a fireable offense to even have the tools installed on work computers/devices.
Converting to a for-profit changes the tax status of donations. It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions.
I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns demanding they revise their originating datasets since there will now be a clear-cut commercial use without license.
Do you have a link to a copy of the video with captions? YouTube autogen doesn't cut it unfortunately. Or perhaps a written-form version (slide deck + transcript)?
You argued quite the opposite, in fact, by claiming copyright (and not license terms) ensures open source software.
It is entirely possible to ban proprietary software in cases of human rights and public interest (e.g., open source medical firmware, to use the OP case) while maintaining copyright law even as it exists now.