Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 8, 2:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:

<most of the discussion about moral hazard snipped>

> I don't think you understand what a moral hazard is. Under no
> circumstances is it a moral hazard to say "If you do X, I will do Y" --
> in this case, "If you obey these restrictions on redistribution, I'll
> licence this copyrighted work to you". Perhaps you should check the
> definition before arguing further that the GPL imposes a moral hazard on
> anyone:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

Well, definition is a tricky thing.  Note that the wikipedia article
is disputed.  One definition of moral hazard is "The tendency of a
person or entity that is imperfectly monitored to engage in
undesirable behavior."  Under this definition, Linksys apparently
thought that the imperfect monitoring would let it get away with GPL
violations.  Certainly, even if Linksys as a corporation wasn't trying
to get away with anything, their employees were improperly monitored,
and getting a product out was more important than any potential
copyright violation at the time (which shows there was a moral hazard
their employees took advantage of under either the definition I gave
or the wikipedia definition.)  There are probably other companies (or
employees of those companies) getting away with GPL violations right
now -- certainly the risk of discovery if you just use a small portion
of GPL code and don't distribute your source must be very small.
There are certainly fewer companies getting away with MIT license
violations, simply because the license is so much harder to violate.

> > If I expect nothing in return, if it's
> > a gift, then the likelihood of moral hazard is significantly reduced.
> > Unless you are somehow suggesting that I owe my user's customers
> > anything (which suggestion, btw, is frequently made in veiled terms, and
> > always pisses me off), there is no other moral hazard produced by me
> > choosing a permissive license for my code.
>
> No, you don't *owe* them anything, but this brings us back to Ben's
> original post. If you care about the freedoms of Cisco's customers as
> much as you care about the freedoms of Cisco, then that's a good reason
> to grant those customers the same rights as you granted Cisco.

But I *do* grant them the same rights -- they can come to my site and
download my software!!!

> And let's not forget self-interest -- if you care about *your own
> freedoms*, then it is in your own self-interest to encourage others to
> use open licences rather than closed ones. The MIT licence merely
> encourages openness by example, while the GPL makes it a legal
> requirement.

But I *do* care about my own freedom.  I thought I made that crystal
clear.  If I produce something under the MIT license, it's because I
want to give it away with no strings.  If I produce something under
the GPL (that's not merely a small addendum to a preexisting project),
it's probably going to be because I think it's pretty valuable stuff,
maybe even valuable enough I might be able to make some money with
it.  If I'm going to use any prebuilt components, those *can't* be
licensed under the GPL if I want to deliver the final package under
the MIT license. Even if I'm using the GPL for my valuable software,
my monetization options are more limited if I use a third party
component that is licensed under the GPL, because I now don't have the
viable option of dual-licensing.  So, that gets back to my argument
about what I like to see in a package I use, and how I license things
according to what I would like see.  For me, the golden rule dictates
that when I give a gift of software, I release it under a permissive
license.  I realize that others see this differently.

> Which brings us back full circle to Ben's position, which you took
> exception to. If the global freedoms granted by the GPL are sufficiently
> important to you, then you should use the GPL. If you have other factors
> which are more important, then choose another licence. Why you considered
> this controversial enough to require sarcastic comments about the
> untrustworthiness of Guido and the PSF, I don't know.

To me, the clear implication of the blanket statement that you have to
use the GPL if you care at all about users is that anybody who doesn't
use the GPL is uncaring.  I think that's a silly attitude, and will
always use any tool at hand, including sarcasm, to point out when
other people try to impose their own narrow sense of morality on
others by painting what I perceive to be perfectly normal, moral,
decent, and legal behavior as somehow detrimental to the well-being of
the species (honestly -- ebola???)

Regards,
Pat