Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Not emptier than you analogy toolbox.  This is really a pretty stupid
analogy, but I guess my lame attempts at showing that are wasted.

> > > 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.

No.  That's not what is happening, and you've now officially stretched
the analogy way past the breaking point.  In any case, he's telling me
I have to give the recipe for my homemade peanut butter.

> Is the Creative Commons share-
> alike clause just as objectionable to you, because it's that principle
> we're talking about here?

I have explained that, in some cases, I will use GPL software, and in
other cases I won't, and tried to explain why and what the difference
is.  Anybody can re-read my posts and figure out that the same might
apply to the various Creative Commons licenses.

> > > 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.

Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing the semantic
difference between "make" and "force".  Could you elucidate?

> 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.

And I've already explained why, in some cases, someone might refuse
the tastiest chocolate in the world to not join in.

> > 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).

No, but copyright licenses are funny things, not like contracts where
there is a meeting of the minds up front.  For example, while the
Ciscos of the world have no excuse, I bet a lot of people who download
Ubuntu and make copies for their friends are unaware of this section
of the GPL FAQ:

"I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do
I have to get the source and distribute that too?   Yes. The general
rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete
corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you
received a written offer for source code is quite limited."

Regards,
Pat