Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 12 Mai, 21:02, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 1:00 pm, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

[Quoting himself...]

> > "Not least because people are only obliged to make their work
> > available under a GPL-compatible licence so that people who are using
> > the combined work may redistribute it under
> > the GPL."
>
> > In case you don't find this satisfactory, "their work" means "their
> > own work".
>
> OK, but in the last several threads on this sub-part, you kept
> contradicting me for some supposed technicality (how was I to know
> there were two RMS's?) when I was trying to make the same point.

We both agree that any combining a work with a GPL-licensed work means
that the result has to be distributable under the GPL. I was also
merely pointing out that the non-GPL-licensed work has to be licensed
compatibly if the possibility of combination with GPL-licensed works
exists, but you still get to choose the licence. You even acknowledged
this:

"In practice, what it really means is that the combination (e.g. the
whole program) would effectively be GPL-licensed.  This then means
that downstream users would have to double-check that they are not
combining the whole work with licenses which are GPL-incompatible,
even if they are not using the svg feature."

And for the last time, Stallman's opinion on what you should or should
not do is a distinct matter from the actual use of these licences.

[Haible and readline]

> He wasn't distributing it!  It didn't incur any legal consequences;
> only the consequence due to not realizing that using readline placed
> him squarely inside RMS's chess game.

Really, what Stallman did in 1992 is a matter for Stallman to defend.
Whether a bunch of people use the GPL to license their work or not is
a separate matter. All I can say is that Stallman's reasoning was
probably driven by the possibility that someone could license their
work in a fashion that is incompatible with readline, but deliberately
be able to make use of it technically, and then when a user combines
that work and readline, the user is told that although readline is
used in that combined work, the licensing terms do not now apply.

[...]

> No.  That's what you get when you use a copyrighted work authored by
> an idealist who is trying to spread his choice of license.

Well, take it up with Stallman, then. It's a separate issue from the
use of the FSF's licences and even how the FSF functions today.

[...]

> Yes, I understand it's no big deal to you.  However, what you have
> said is not quite right.  If I license something under the MIT
> license, I cannot guarantee that no one will ever get it under the
> GPL, because it could be redistributed downstream under the GPL (but
> then I don't care to in any case).  However, I *can* guarantee that
> the code I write (and all the underlying code it relies on) will
> remain freely available from me for people who need the ability to,
> for example, link with proprietary code.

Yes, and as I said, in the context of a program landing in a user's
lap, there is no guarantee that such a program will offer users any
privileges other than to run the program, and then maybe only under
certain conditions. Which is how this discussion began.

> Despite this not being a very big deal to you, the whole tempest in a
> teacup here is about this very issue.  Yes, I understand it is a
> problem for me, or any other author who wants to provide code that can
> be used freely by people who download it.  And, as has been pointed
> out in this discussion, many people don't read licenses very
> carefully, so someone who doesn't want to restrict other people from
> linking his library with third party proprietary code should think
> twice about using the GPL.

Sure, the permissive licences declare fewer restrictions or
obligations on immediate recipients, but what kicked this discussion
off was the remark about end-user privileges, not what certain
recipients (but not others) are able to do with the code.

[...]

> > No, what I am saying is that a fair amount of work might have gone
> > into making readline, even though it may not be shiny enough by some
> > people's standards, but that doesn't mean you can disregard the
> > authors' wishes by insisting that is it "trivial" or unimportant,
> > whereas your own software somehow is important. As soon as you go down
> > that road, everyone can start belittling the works of others purely so
> > that they can start disregarding the terms which regulate those works,
> > and then it's a free-for-all.
>
> Ahh, well done.  You've sucked me into a meaningless side debate.  If
> I'm not distributing readline, then legally the license distribution
> terms don't apply to me.  End of story.  (Morally, now we might get
> into how trivial it is or isn't.)

According to the FSF, whose opinions you don't trust, it doesn't
matter if you do distribute readline or not:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

>From version 3 of the GPL:

"For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files
associated with source files for the work, and the source code for
shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is
specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data
communication or control flow between those subprograms and other
parts of the work."

You may beg to differ. I would advise against doing so in a courtroom.

[...]

> But you don't need to know anything else.  RMS claimed clisp was a
> derivative work of readline, even though readline wasn't even
> distributed with clisp.  That's just plain copyright misuse, and if it
> had gone to court with good lawyers, RMS might have lost the copyright
> protections for readline.

Now that *is* a ridiculous statement. Just because a decision is made
that one work is not derived from another does not mean that the
claimed original work is no longer subject to copyright.

Paul