Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 14, 11:19 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:10:50 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> > But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them,
> > they are now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this
> > position.
>
> If your client is distributing software without reading and obeying the
> licence terms, then they are either idiots, or unethical, or possibly
> both.

How about just "ignorant."  Maybe even "blissfully ignorant" as in,
you just used permissively-licensed software, and since you're not
Microsoft and they paid you a fair amount of money for the software
and you both agreed on a handshake or a back of the napkin contract
that you could both do whatever you wanted with the software (except
stripping copyright notices), they go and do exactly that.

> If you want to make life easier on them by reducing the consequences of
> such foolish and/or unethical behaviour, that of course is your right.
> There are good reasons for doing so, and equally good reasons for not.

Well, for people who don't feel the imperative of the FSF's prime
directive, the only really good reason for "not" is if you found some
super-cool GPL-licensed software that will greatly reduce the cost of
the contract, *and* you can leverage some of the savings into your own
pocket.

> It's also their right to ask you to assign copyright to them, or to
> licence the work using the MIT licence (or similar), or to ask for an
> exclusive licence. Or even to ask you to sign a "no compete" agreement
> which prevents you from ever writing code again. It's your choice whether
> to say Yay or Nay, and if you agree, how much you will charge for it.

Sure, contracts can be made as simple or complex as the parties want.
In most cases, reuse of preexisting GPLed software certainly won't
simplify the negotiations, though.  In Texas, though, that particular
"no-compete" wouldn't fly.  I'll sign non-compete clauses like that in
the blink of an eye; it's the speciously more limited ones that you
have to watch out for because sometimes the courts will uphold at
least parts of those: http://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/

> > When using the GPL or LGPL you can do anything you want as long as you
> > do not let anyone else use your work, but if you let someone else have a
> > copy of you work you are putting them in a position where that can
> > easily/inadvertently violate the law. I do not want to put clients in
> > legal jeopardy, so I do not use GPL, or LGPLed code.
>
> You're not putting them in legal jeopardy, they are. It is their decision
> whether or not to violate the licence.

Uh-huh.  If they're in legal jeopardy, you are too (at least in the
USA) because the first thing they are going to do is to cross-sue you
for failure to explain to them that you were using GPLed software.
Doesn't matter if it's not true.  Doesn't even matter if you have
signed contracts that prove it's not true.  It's still going to cost
you a pretty penny to get away from the lawsuit.

So, really, why go through all that unless it's going to save enough
on the contract to justify it?  Seriously, a software contract can be
less than half a page under some circumstances, and written so that
basically you and they can both do whatever you want, and neither is
going to sue the other.

Regards,
Pat