Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 12, 6:15 pm, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 20:29, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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."
>
> Right. The "full cost" of software that probably cost them nothing
> monetarily and which comes with all the sources, some through a chain
> of distribution and improvement which could have led to proprietary
> software had the earliest stages in the chain involved permissive
> licensing. And that they can't sell a binary-only Ubuntu derivative.

Who's talking about selling a binary-only version -- there is a good
chance they can't even give away a binary CD without violating
copyright.

> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> So, the "negative consequences" are that people can't make proprietary
> editions of some software. When that's a deliberate choice in the
> design of a licence, there's no pretending that the consequences
> aren't there, just that they aren't perceived by everyone to be
> negative.

I gave an example earlier of svglib and rst2pdf.  Negative
consequences.  Nothing proprietary involved.

> > 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.
>
> Well, you effectively said that you didn't like being asked to "share
> alike", which is what the GPL achieves.

I give away lots of software.  Free to all comers.  Come and get some.

> so why should I not assume
> that you generally object to other, more obviously labelled licences
> like the CC-*-SA licences which make it clear what is expected of that
> hapless recipient of a work who doesn't bother reading the licence?

Your assumptions are so far away from reality that there is really no
good reason why you shouldn't assume that I'm a 10 foot tall purple
monster.

> > 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".
>
> Yes, but you have to choose to do something ("X") to start with. Which
> is actually what you wrote later in that exchange:
>
> "Again, the force is applied once you choose to do a particular thing
> with the software -- is is really that hard to understand that
> concept?"

I didn't just write that later.  I wrote it in my very first post,
which you just quoted a few lines up, apparently without even
bothering to read it closely.  I agree with that.  But you only
grudgingly agree with that, if at all, and when you do you make it
look like I'm the one trying desperately not to agree with it, because
in order to agree with it, you have to agree that, in the limited
context that I used the word "force", it is accurate, and you really
don't want to do that.

> But you're virtually claiming that people stumble into a situation
> where they have to do something they don't like or didn't anticipate,
> when in fact they've actually entered into an agreement.

Some people (end users of Ubuntu) do stumble into a situation.  Some
people see and decide not to enter into an agreement and attempt to
warn others that there may be consequences -- that if they enter into
the agreement they will be "forced" to live with those consequences.
This latter group of people always winds up arguing with those who
think the GPL is always good and none of the consequences are ever
negative, and forced is a loaded word.

> > 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.
>
> Nonsense. If anything, it's a matter of priorities, and completely
> absurd to claim that the FSF and all the other copyright holders for
> GPL-licensed software on Ubuntu installation media are all conspiring
> together to "seed" the planet with "unlicensed wares" in order to reap
> some kind of monetary reward afterwards, which is what Microsoft has
> been accused of.

So, the FSF, which so carefully provides the most legalese-ish license
on the planet, which was in development for god-knows-how-long, which
maintains a carefully parsed FAQ of what you can and can't do, which
engages in all sorts of advocacy, can't find the time to explain to
Ubuntu that they really ought to explain how the licensing works on
their download page?  What have you been smoking and where can I get
some?

> > Despite your opinion, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with
> > me using GPL software (and not redistributing it) just because I
>
> I never said there was. I said that if you don't like the licence,
> don't incorporate works which use it into your own projects.

No, you said "If you don't like them, don't use GPL-licensed
software."

> But don't
> say that it's not fair that people are releasing stuff under terms you
> don't like, or say that they're being "pathetic" or petty or
> ridiculous by doing so, or are imposing their agenda on you.

The only time I mentioned pathetic and petty were for really small
libraries, which probably wouldn't merit copyright protection in any
case.

>
> More name-calling and finger-pointing. Great stuff, there. Anything
> else?

Yes, just that you keep selectively quoting both of us, and twisting
what we both said to meet your agenda.  But I'm done.  I think there
are enough pointers to original material here for others to go and do
whatever level of research they deem appropriate for their own
situations.

Regards,
Pat