5 ms·

Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft

by cm3 10y ago

Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.

belorn 10y ago
The length of the GPL text is mostly there to specify (limit) scope, and use specific legal terms for common legal situations. GPLv3 also add sections for license compatibility, to make it easier for violators to avoid lawsuits and continue with life if they decide enter compliance with the license, and define legal terms that is understood in US law, EU law and India/Asia. If you don't need any of that, you could just write down the four freedoms and add "must use this license" at the end. It would be almost as short as MIT, but enforcement will require a lot of common sense from the courts rather then legal precedence. I once heard a interesting idea to rewrite GPL in terms of pure permissions. It would be in theory compatible with the existing license, significant longer text, but somewhat easier to understand since it would just be a long list of explicit things which the licensee has permission to do.
- cm3 10y ago
  I'm happy to find someone who has a deeper understanding of the issues it tries to solve by being so verbose. While you're here, do you think you can help me understand why Apache2's (and GPL(2,3))'s liability disclaimer clause effectively seems to disclaims just in part? BSD, MIT, ISC, all just disclaim any liabilities caused by the code, whereas GPL and Apache have an exception embedded in the clause, and I cannot make sense of it. Say you publish code under Apache or GPL that is then used by some uninformed who loses data and claims your tool is at fault, now claiming you to be liable as laid out in the sentence about exceptions to the rule. Why would one want that as an open source developer in code they publish but have no paid service contract of any kind in place that would cover liability claims? From Apache2: unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing This is the bit which is in no form included in BSD, MIT, ISC, and it rubs me the wrong way. I do understand that you're not above the law, but that's for courts to decide, and this bit doesn't seem to help either party (one of the contributors or the damaged license taker (aka user of the code)). I also don't understand how the following connects to the rest of the clause but other than that I can pretty much make sense of Apache2 even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Why would the contributor be advised of damages the code he's contributing himself or contributing to might do?
  - belorn 10y ago
    I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge over disclaimer clauses is mostly from a days lecture by a legal historian professor, and he summarized it as mostly forgotten magic which is based on century old practices. For example, the practice of all caps just happens to be an example that a specific US agency gave in order to describe how to make a disclaimer "noticeable", but people just ran with it and now it just what everyone does. I do have a guess on why Apache2 mention applicable law, which was something I read in Swedish contract law (if licenses is a contract or not is, of course, also debated between lawyers). The law mentioned specific situations in which either a clause in a contract or the contract as a whole could be declared invalid, which could happen when for example a clause is "too unfair" or when a party can be said as unaware of the clause or its consequences. My guess is thus that the Apache2 disclaimer mention applicable law as a way to dodge laws in countries which otherwise could make the whole disclaimer invalid. As for the last question, a contributor might have sought advice from a lawyer which, as many lawyers do, gave an advice of caution. In some cases, foreknowledge about risks increases damages and risk of being sued, so my guess is that the disclaimer tries to avoid that situation. In both cases, it seems as mostly efforts to try make the disclaimer more safe to use in a international context, where MIT and BSD is more focused on the law which govern Massachusetts and Berkeley. I personally doubt however that the differences matter much in practice, particular in the US and EU.

by cm3 10y ago

belorn 10y ago

The length of the GPL text is mostly there to specify (limit) scope, and use specific legal terms for common legal situations. GPLv3 also add sections for license compatibility, to make it easier for violators to avoid lawsuits and continue with life if they decide enter compliance with the license, and define legal terms that is understood in US law, EU law and India/Asia. If you don't need any of that, you could just write down the four freedoms and add "must use this license" at the end. It would be almost as short as MIT, but enforcement will require a lot of common sense from the courts rather then legal precedence. I once heard a interesting idea to rewrite GPL in terms of pure permissions. It would be in theory compatible with the existing license, significant longer text, but somewhat easier to understand since it would just be a long list of explicit things which the licensee has permission to do.

cm3 10y ago
I'm happy to find someone who has a deeper understanding of the issues it tries to solve by being so verbose. While you're here, do you think you can help me understand why Apache2's (and GPL(2,3))'s liability disclaimer clause effectively seems to disclaims just in part? BSD, MIT, ISC, all just disclaim any liabilities caused by the code, whereas GPL and Apache have an exception embedded in the clause, and I cannot make sense of it. Say you publish code under Apache or GPL that is then used by some uninformed who loses data and claims your tool is at fault, now claiming you to be liable as laid out in the sentence about exceptions to the rule. Why would one want that as an open source developer in code they publish but have no paid service contract of any kind in place that would cover liability claims? From Apache2: unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing This is the bit which is in no form included in BSD, MIT, ISC, and it rubs me the wrong way. I do understand that you're not above the law, but that's for courts to decide, and this bit doesn't seem to help either party (one of the contributors or the damaged license taker (aka user of the code)). I also don't understand how the following connects to the rest of the clause but other than that I can pretty much make sense of Apache2 even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Why would the contributor be advised of damages the code he's contributing himself or contributing to might do?
- belorn 10y ago
  I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge over disclaimer clauses is mostly from a days lecture by a legal historian professor, and he summarized it as mostly forgotten magic which is based on century old practices. For example, the practice of all caps just happens to be an example that a specific US agency gave in order to describe how to make a disclaimer "noticeable", but people just ran with it and now it just what everyone does. I do have a guess on why Apache2 mention applicable law, which was something I read in Swedish contract law (if licenses is a contract or not is, of course, also debated between lawyers). The law mentioned specific situations in which either a clause in a contract or the contract as a whole could be declared invalid, which could happen when for example a clause is "too unfair" or when a party can be said as unaware of the clause or its consequences. My guess is thus that the Apache2 disclaimer mention applicable law as a way to dodge laws in countries which otherwise could make the whole disclaimer invalid. As for the last question, a contributor might have sought advice from a lawyer which, as many lawyers do, gave an advice of caution. In some cases, foreknowledge about risks increases damages and risk of being sued, so my guess is that the disclaimer tries to avoid that situation. In both cases, it seems as mostly efforts to try make the disclaimer more safe to use in a international context, where MIT and BSD is more focused on the law which govern Massachusetts and Berkeley. I personally doubt however that the differences matter much in practice, particular in the US and EU.