Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 13 Mai, 01:58, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 6:15 pm, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > 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.

People only have to honour requests for the corresponding source if
asked for it. They are not violating copyright by default. If you
think Ubuntu are exposing people to legal peril by advocating that
people make copies of Ubuntu for their friends, why don't you tell
Mark Shuttleworth about 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.

Negative consequences for people who don't want to touch GPL-licensed
software and who reserve the right to make proprietary versions of
rst2pdf.

[...]

> > 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.

Yes, but you don't insist that people "share alike". I don't demand
that you insist that, either, but you clearly object to other people
putting that condition on their own works.

> > 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.

Then you've done a very bad job communicating them. Laying off the
bizarre imagery might help remedy that somewhat.

[...]

> > 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 did read it closely. Now read your own comment closely and take
particular notice of the word "choose".

[...]

> 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

Have you read the Mozilla Public License? Have you read through Sun's
JDK licence? You were complaining about Microsoft licensing earlier:
have you read those licences through to the end? (There are people who
refuse to accept them, incidentally, and are then refused any kind of
refund for the product. Next you'll be claiming that the FSF's
indiscretions are on the same level as this particular Microsoft-plus-
vendor scam, and yet accuse me of a lack of a sense of perspective.)

> 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?

I think Ubuntu can maybe see the case for moving their notice on their
"legal" page to the download page if you can make it successfully. Or
is your point that people have to be "warned" about that inconvenient
GPL licence?

> What have you been smoking and where can I get some?

Yes, always ready with a pertinent response, I see.

[...]

> > 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."

In the context of developing and redistributing it. If you hate the
GPL so much, you might not feel comfortable even using the software,
either, but that's up to you. You're the one with the problem with the
GPL.

> > 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.

And for you, libraries like readline are apparently not really worth
anything, either. It's always interesting to see the case made for
incorporating something into another system because it apparently has
little value relative to the entire system, but should the request be
made that the incorporated work be dropped and replaced by something
rewritten to do the same job, it is suddenly far too much work.

> > 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.

All my position has ever been is this:

A copyrighted work denies recipients virtually all rights to do stuff
with that work, such as modify and redistribute it. Copyleft licences
grant some privileges and uphold some obligations in order to ensure
that these privileges are universally maintained in all forms and
extensions of the work. Permissive licences grant more privileges to
immediate recipients but do not uphold as many obligations.

You rejected the suggestion that people using permissive licences
afford users fewer privileges than those using copyleft licences, yet
on balance when considering all forms and extensions of the work, they
do. And the only such privilege that the copyleft licences withholds
from recipients is that of withholding any other privilege from others
who receive the work.

You objected to the suggestion that people using permissive licences
do not care about maintaining such privileges ("an uncaring bunch"),
yet it can be said that they surely do not actively care about the
matter of such privileges being maintained: I have encountered
proprietary variants of Apache technologies, and proprietary editions
of Python have been released from some vendors. If they had considered
it important enough, they would not have chosen licences which
permitted the delivery of their work (or extended versions thereof) to
people where many of the privileges normally afforded to users have
been withheld.

You made the point that some people don't want to touch GPL-licensed
software because it might affect the permissively licensed software
that they are writing. Since the only effect of combining both forms
of software occurs when offering that to a user, and that effect is to
uphold the copyleft obligations and maintain the corresponding set of
privileges, withholding only the privilege to deny recipients the
other privileges, this means that it becomes impossible to make the
combined work a proprietary one. You then tried to sow uncertainty
about the validity and effectiveness of the GPL to achieve its
objectives.

I can see why some people don't like the GPL. When the only notable
privilege it withholds is precisely that of taking the work of others
and making a proprietary product from it, all the claims about
coercion and ideology should be considered against this very function
of the licence. Then, the motivations of a number of its critics are
plain for all to see.

That some of those critics appeal to public outrage by using
references to terrorists, criminals and fundamentalists should hardly
be surprising, and I have come to expect no better in discussions of
this kind. Anything to accuse others of having an agenda - even better
if that agenda can be blended in the popular imagination with those
aforementioned kinds of undesirable people - while doing as much as
they can to conceal their own.

Paul