Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 12 Mai, 16:45, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > Thus, "owned my soul" joins "holy war" and "Bin Laden" on the list.
> > That rhetorical toolbox is looking pretty empty at this point.
>
> Not emptier than you analogy toolbox.  This is really a pretty stupid
> analogy, but I guess my lame attempts at showing that are wasted.

Yes they are. The analogy was to point out that someone can really
want something, but if they are not prepared to accept the "price" of
acquiring it, then there is no point in them whining about someone
withholding that thing from them, or whining about someone "forcing"
them to do stuff, especially when there is clearly no "force" involved
at all.

[...]

> > He isn't, though. He's telling you that you can't force other people
> > to lick the chocolate off whatever "Reese's Peanut Butter cups" are,
> > rather than actually eating the combination of the two, when you offer
> > such a combination to someone else.
>
> No.  That's not what is happening, and you've now officially stretched
> the analogy way past the breaking point.  In any case, he's telling me
> I have to give the recipe for my homemade peanut butter.

If you want to redefine the basis of the analogy, then you can talk
about the recipe all you like, yes. Otherwise, no: the analogy was
only about people whining about not being able to get stuff with no
strings attached. I could swap that analogy with one that has someone
really wanting a ride on a bus, or wanting to go to the moon, where
they don't like it when someone tells them that they can't get do that
stuff without agreeing to something or other first. Feel free to start
discussing the shape of the bus ticket or who pays for spacesuits if
you want, but to say, "I really want to use that thing, but that nasty
man has licensed it under the GPL" is whining in precisely the same
way as featured in the analogy.

> > Is the Creative Commons share-
> > alike clause just as objectionable to you, because it's that principle
> > we're talking about here?
>
> I have explained that, in some cases, I will use GPL software, and in
> other cases I won't, and tried to explain why and what the difference
> is.  Anybody can re-read my posts and figure out that the same might
> apply to the various Creative Commons licenses.

So it is objectionable to you as well, then.

[...]

> > Yes, he's making everyone commit to sharing, and yes, it's like a
> > snowball effect once people agree to join in.
>
> Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing the semantic
> difference between "make" and "force".  Could you elucidate?

Yes: once they've agreed to join in, they "have to" go along with the
whole scheme.

> > But unless you hide that
> > commitment, no-one imposes anything on anyone. They can get their
> > chocolate elsewhere. They join in; they are not conscripted.
>
> And I've already explained why, in some cases, someone might refuse
> the tastiest chocolate in the world to not join in.

Well, great for them. I thought they were "forced" to join in. I guess
not.

[...]

> No, but copyright licenses are funny things, not like contracts where
> there is a meeting of the minds up front.  For example, while the
> Ciscos of the world have no excuse, I bet a lot of people who download
> Ubuntu and make copies for their friends are unaware of this section
> of the GPL FAQ:
>
> "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do
> I have to get the source and distribute that too?   Yes. The general
> rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete
> corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you
> received a written offer for source code is quite limited."

Yes, and that's why, when Mepis Linux were found not to be
distributing the sources, they had to go along with the above section.
And that's also why version 3 of the GPL has a clause about nominating
a party that will honour the obligation to provide source. But what's
your problem exactly? The GPL applies to redistribution, and the
default state of a copyrighted work is that you don't have permission
to redistribute it, so before someone shares something they have to
know whether they are able to do so or not.

The various clauses are all there for their own reasons. If you don't
like them, don't use GPL-licensed software.

Paul