Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 12, 12:17 pm, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

But nobody's whining about the strings attached to the software.  Just
pointing out why they sometimes won't use a particular piece of
software, and pointing out that some other people (e.g. random Ubuntu
users) might not understand the full cost of the software, and that
that is because the cost of the software has been deliberately
obscured by using unqualified terms like all-caps "Free Software."

> > > 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.

Oh, no wonder I didn't understand what you were getting at with the
analogy.  I'm not whining about people licensing stuff under the GPL,
just about its apologists pretending there are never any negative
consequences from it.

> > > 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.

I somehow knew that is how you would read my posts, but no.  It's
people like you putting words in my month that is objectionable.

> [...]
>
> > > 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.

Sorry, that is absolutely no different than what I originally said
when I was first defending Aahz's use of the word "force" to Ben
Finney back on the 7th:

"Perhaps you feel "forces" is too loaded of a word.  There is no
question, however, that a copyright license can require that if you do
"X" with some code, you must also do "Y".  There is also no question
that the GPL uses this capability in copyright law to require anybody
who distributes a derivative work to provide the source.  Thus,
"forced to contribute back any changes" is definitely what happens
once the decision is made to distribute said changes in object form."

Both your "make" and my "force" mean "to compel."  We've come full
circle.  The English language makes no real distinction between
"making everyone commit" and "forcing everyone [to] commit".


> > > 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.

That's because you use selective quoting of "forced" and deliberately
ignore the context it was used in.

> > 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?

My problem, exactly, is that bothering Mepis, yet not bothering Joe
Blow when he gives a copy to his friend, is exactly the kind of
selective enforcement of copyright rights that Microsoft is accused of
when they turn a blind eye to piracy in third-world countries.

>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.

And Joe Blow assumes that something that says "Free Software" means
it.  Sure he *should* read the copyright license, but you've already
admitted he probably won't bother, and might not understand it if he
does.

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

I've already explained very carefully multiple times:

1) I often use GPL software, and don't have any problem with the
license at all *as a user*.
2) I very seldom create stuff under the GPL because I don't like
imposing those sorts of restrictions on software I am giving away; and
3) For stuff  I create which is not under the GPL, to make sure that I
can give it away without restrictions, I need to make sure that I am
not incorporating any GPL software.

Despite your opinion, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with
me using GPL software (and not redistributing it) just because I
happen to feel that (a) for my purposes, for most stuff I write, it
happens to be the wrong license, (b) (especially historically) some of
the practices used to insure proliferation of the GPL are ethically
questionable, and (c) whenever these ethically questionable practices
are discussed, quasi-religious apologists will take these questionable
practices to the next level, by selective quoting and bad analogies
and hinting at things without actually coming out and saying them, and
all sorts of other debate tactics designed to confuse rather than
enlighten.

Regards,
Pat