Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 8 Mai, 22:05, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 2:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
> >
> > No, you don't *owe* them anything, but this brings us back to Ben's
> > original post. If you care about the freedoms of Cisco's customers as
> > much as you care about the freedoms of Cisco, then that's a good reason
> > to grant those customers the same rights as you granted Cisco.
>
> But I *do* grant them the same rights -- they can come to my site and
> download my software!!!

Of course they can, but it doesn't mean that they can run that
software on the Cisco equipment they've bought, nor does it mean that
the original software can interoperate with the modified software,
that the end-user can enhance the original software in a way that they
prefer and have it work with the rest of the Cisco solution, or that
the data produced by the Cisco solution can be understood by a user-
enhanced version of the original solution or by other software that
normally interoperates with the original software. People often argue
that the GPL only cares about the software's freedom, not the
recipient's freedom, which I find to be a laughable claim because if
one wanted to point at something the GPL places higher than anything
else, it would be the "four freedoms" preserved for each user's
benefit.

Really, copyleft licences are all about treating all recipients of the
software and modified versions or extensions of the software in the
same way: that someone receiving the software, in whatever state of
enhancement, has all the same privileges that the individual or
organisation providing the software to them enjoyed; those "four
freedoms" should still apply to whatever software they received. That
this is achieved by asking that everyone make the same commitment to
end-user freedoms (or privileges), yet is seen as unreasonable or
actually perceived as coercion by some, says a great deal about the
perspective of those complaining about it.

[...]

>                                   So, that gets back to my argument
> about what I like to see in a package I use, and how I license things
> according to what I would like see.  For me, the golden rule dictates
> that when I give a gift of software, I release it under a permissive
> license.  I realize that others see this differently.

Yes, but what irritates a lot of people is when you see other people
arguing that some other random person should license their own
software permissively because it's "better" or "more free" when what
they really mean is that "I could use it to make a proprietary
product".

[...]

> To me, the clear implication of the blanket statement that you have to
> use the GPL if you care at all about users is that anybody who doesn't
> use the GPL is uncaring.

Well, if you want the users to enjoy those "four freedoms" then you
should use a copyleft licence. If you choose a permissive licence then
it more or less means that you don't care about (or have no particular
position on the matter of) the users being able to enjoy those
privileges. I believe you coined the term "uncaring", but I think Mr
Finney's statement stands up to scrutiny.

Paul