[kwlug-disc] Permissive vs copyleft licenses

[Chris Frey]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:42:34PM -0500, Doug Moen wrote:
> Homepage for the Copyfree Initiative: http://www.copyfree.org/

Taken from their front page:

	Copyfree policy is a way to make both your life and others'
	lives easier, to enhance the visibility of both creators and their
	works, and in general to make the world a better place. There may
	be times when people have specific goals that might prompt them
	to pursue some alternative copyright licensing and enforcement
	policy. As copyright enforcement under the standard models of the
	twentieth century become increasingly difficult and expensive,
	though, much greater benefits can be had by taking advantage
	of the network effects of social sharing, enabling and even
	encouraging it as part of a greater strategy for advancing the
	interests of both the creator and the consumer.

That's very well phrased, and captures quite nicely the "strategic"
elements I was trying to point out.

It's that strategy of network effects vs. legal effects that get
demonstrated in the different worlds of GPL and BSD, and I'm glad we
have both.


> The BSD people are pursuing software freedom as a moral principle.

Thanks for that explanation.  I haven't kept up with the BSD side
as most of my life is spent in a Linux box.


> > The GPL focuses on freedom first
> 
> This is a controversial statement within the FOSS community, and it
> only makes sense in the context of FSF theology.

then...

> The lack of freedom in the GPL licences does impact me personally,
> even within the context of a pure FOSS software project, due to the
> concept of "licence incompatibility", a concept seemingly invented by RMS
> and promoted by him and his acolytes as a device to prevent people from
> using FOSS software in ways he disapproves of (or, "increasing people's
> freedom", as he would put it). For example, there are two libraries
> I've considered using in my project. One, Carve, has a GPL 2 licence
> (not GPL 2 or later). The other, CGAL, has a GPL 3 licence. According
> to RMS, I am not  permitted to link to both of these libraries: I must
> choose one or the other, because the GPL 2 is incompatible with the GPL
> 3. Hurray! I feel so "free"! This bullshit does not occur in the world
> of copyfree licensing.

As we quibble over the definition of "free", I'm sure you understand
the goal of GPL, just like I understand the goal of BSD style licenses.
The hangups the GPL has to go through is because they are trying to
use legal means to achieve what can only be fully done in the heart.
There is a reason why it's called copy"left" and these are the same
problems all attempts of communal paradise through legal means have.
I'm not blind to it.

What I do admire though, is the continual focus on the rights of people
who often don't even know enough to care.  That's a good goal, even if
the means are rough and have sharp edges, and it's why there's a soft
spot in my heart for the GPL.  I'm often willing to put up with the
"bullshit" even if it affects me, because I like the end goal.

And I believe it is a good goal because most people don't know enough
to care, and some are unlikely to ever know.  It is that ignorance that
makes them easy prey for people who see them as resources to exploit
instead of vulnerable people that need help.  When a programmer chooses
BSD in order to advance his own personal freedom, he puts the burden
of defending the user's personal freedom on the back of that end user.
This is normal and is the case in most things.  Freedom does have a price.
Caveat emptor and all that.  But the GPL takes the long view, likely
because RMS was that very end user in his early days.


> Note that I don't subscribe to any of these theologies. I use the
> Apache 2 licence, which according to the FSF is a "weak, lax, pushover"
> licence, and according to copyfree.org, is a non-free licence.

Fair enough.  I've used multiple licenses as well, and I'm happy to
use BSD code.  And I like the network effects. :-)


> > It is much more a mindset of "I'll make my own free system, on my own time,
> > even if it has only a fraction of the features of non-free software.
> > Come join me."
> 
> I think this mindset is non-denominational, and is shared by the BSD
> people as well.

I hope so, because that means we are less beholden to business for our
success.

- Chris