Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 14, 1:08 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent
> > elsewhere if someone else had done something differently.  The only time
> > that comes into play in my programming life is when I have to recode
> > something that is nominally available under the GPL, so I'm not sure
> > this is really making the point you think it is.
>
> You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available
> under a proprietary licence that you (or your client) was unwilling to
> use? Lucky you!

Don't be silly.  That's why I started writing open source software in
the first place.  But if I start writing stuff to put in the commons
with strings removed, why would I bother with a license that just adds
some strings back?

> The GPL ensures that once software has entered the commons (and therefore
> available for all), it can never be removed from the commons.

No it doesn't.  It just insures that if people actually *distribute*
the software to others, they have to distribute the source.  In any
case, for software to remain in the commons, it has to be available
where people can get to it.  Somebody has to care enough to maintain a
repository, or it has to be good enough for people to distribute.

> The MIT licence does not.

The only difference is that somebody has to care enough to maintain a
repository, or it has to be good enough for people to distribute
*along with source*.

> Now, you might argue that in practice once software is
> released under an MIT licence, it is unlikely to ever disappear from the
> commons.

Depends on the software.  See above.

> Well, perhaps, but if so, that's despite and not because of the
> licence.

Same thing for GPLed software.  See above.

> In practice, I believe most MIT-licenced code never even makes it into
> the commons in the first place.

Interesting assertion.

> I'm willing to predict that the majority
> of code you've written for paying customers (as opposed to specifically
> for open source projects) has disappeared into their code base, never to
> be seen by anyone outside of the company. Am I right?

That's true, but what on earth does that have to do with the MIT
license?

Regards,
Pat