Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

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.

[...]

> 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.

[Sharing alike]

> 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, 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?

[Obligations after joining a scheme]

> 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?"

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.

[...]

> 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.

[...]

> 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. 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.

> happen to feel that (a) for my purposes, for most stuff I write, it
> happens to be the wrong license, (b) (especially historically) some of
> the practices used to insure proliferation of the GPL are ethically
> questionable, and (c) whenever these ethically questionable practices
> are discussed, quasi-religious apologists will take these questionable
> practices to the next level, by selective quoting and bad analogies
> and hinting at things without actually coming out and saying them, and
> all sorts of other debate tactics designed to confuse rather than
> enlighten.

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

Paul