Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 11 Mai, 22:50, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Yes, *if* you took it. He isn't forcing you to take it, though, is he?
>
> No,  but he said a lot of words that I didn't immediately understand
> about what it meant to be free and that it was free, and then after I
> bit into it he told me he owned my soul now.

Thus, "owned my soul" joins "holy war" and "Bin Laden" on the list.
That rhetorical toolbox is looking pretty empty at this point.

[...]

> > It is whining if someone says, "I really want that chocolate, but that
> > nasty man is going to make me pay for it!"
>
> But that's not what happened.  I mean, he just told me that I might
> have to give some of it to others later.  He didn't mention that if I
> spread peanut butter on mine before I ate it that I'd have to give
> people Reese's Peanut Butter cups.

He isn't, though. He's telling you that you can't force other people
to lick the chocolate off whatever "Reese's Peanut Butter cups" are,
rather than actually eating the combination of the two, when you offer
such a combination to someone else. Is the Creative Commons share-
alike clause just as objectionable to you, because it's that principle
we're talking about here?

[...]

> > If the man said, "please take the chocolate, but I want you to share
> > it with your friends", and you refused to do so because you couldn't
> > accept that condition, would it be right to say, "that man is forcing
> > me to share chocolate with my friends"?
>
> But the thing is, he's *not* making me share the chocolate with any of
> my friends.  He's not even making me share my special peanut butter
> and chocolate.  What he's making me do is, if I give my peanut butter
> and chocolate to one of my friends, he's making me make *that* friend
> promise to share.  I try not to impose obligations like that on my
> friends, so obviously the "nice" man with the chocolate isn't my
> friend!

Yes, he's making everyone commit to sharing, and yes, it's like a
snowball effect once people agree to join in. But unless you hide that
commitment, no-one imposes anything on anyone. They can get their
chocolate elsewhere. They join in; they are not conscripted.

[...]

> I explained this very carefully before multiple times.  Let me give
> concrete examples -- (1) I have told my children before "if we take
> that candy, then they will make us pay for it" and (2) if we included
> (GPLed software) in this (MIT-licensed software) then we will have to
> change the license.  In both these cases, once the decision has been
> made, then yes, force enters into it.  And no, I don't think the
> average shop keeper is nearly as evil as Darth, or even RMS.

Entering an agreement voluntarily does not mean that you are forced to
enter that agreement, even if the agreement then involves obligations
(as agreements inevitably do).

Paul