4 ms·

>BSD is not copyleft, why? Really? People are going to complain because a licence is too free? ...

stagger87 8y ago
Comments like this will only lead to arguing/flaming/etc.
metajack 8y ago
Since Vorbis, we've all worked to make the codec code as restriction free as possible because we need wide deployment for success. It's more important for a royalty-free codec to win than for these codebases to be copyleft. Once AV1 is the default solution, we can start worrying about software licenses :)
laken 8y ago
The complaint usually comes in due to an interpretation of "free." The author includes RMS' opinion, which is true for this particular piece of software, though in many cases it's a warranted complaint. It gets into a political argument usually, but it boils down to this argument: "If I don't require copyleft, then I can't always guarantee that users of my code will get all the freedoms I provided to them."
- class4behavior 8y ago
  Here in detail: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - groestl 8y ago
    Maybe I missed something, but this essay seems to deal with the relationship of Open Source v Free Software, not Free Software v Copyleft Software.
    - class4behavior 8y ago
      You don't need an explicit essay on that comparison. Morever it's not vs Copyleft, but why copyleft is generally material to the purpose of Free Software. In the linked entry Stallman primarily explains what is understood as Free Software. The comparison with Open Source merely serves as a device to illustrate the nuances in a more relatable way. >Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.
      - groestl 8y ago
        I find that distinction very much of interest, and sure enough, RMS also has an explicit text available which deals with that matter more directly [0]. While free software protects the freedoms of the user only, copyleft software protects the freedoms of the developer as well. Both types of software are ethical (as mentioned in [1]), so it comes down to personal choice of the original author, who can use it as a tool to ensure their goals. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
jbk 8y ago
Yes, we have had some remarks. VideoLAN usually does copyleft (LGPL) projects, so it needed clarifications for our community.
- prablenha 8y ago
  I don't understand how can someone argue "your licence is too free, you should make it more restrictive so fewer people can use your software", but what do I know
  - rbultje 8y ago
    The concern is typically from developers (the copyright owners), not end users.
  - zodiac 8y ago
    If your definition of a good license is "the terms are as unrestrictive as possible" why not release all software into the public domain? There's legitimate arguments to be made for more restrictive licenses, even if I don't agree with them all the time.
    - oddevan 8y ago
      IIRC, "public domain" means different things in different countries, and can make it hard to enforce as a software license. See https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain A BSD-style license is probably the closest to public domain while still being easy to read/understand.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    The choice makes no difference to who can use this version of this software, but copyleft protects users from future derivatives getting locked away in exchange for forbidding proprietary derivatives altogether. In the case of popularising a video codec the rise of some proprietary derivative seems an acceptable risk but for some random program what's the upside?
adrianmonk 8y ago
I look at it as a trade-off between short-term freedom and long-term freedom. BSD gives more short-term freedom. GPL trades some short-term freedom to attempt to better preserve long-term freedom. To me that trade is a reasonable strategy, but I also think BSD has a hidden(?) benefit on a different front in the battle for openness. If you have a libre implementation of something but nobody uses it, it's not much use. If the availability of BSD-licensed code induces a corporation to use that instead of developing their own proprietary technology, it might be a net win, especially if that big corporation has a lot of influence over users.
- mjevans 8y ago
  What we want here are more users of the AV1 codec. As such, an implementation that doesn't suck that anyone can use and MIGHT want to contribute fixes/optimizations upstream so they don't have to carry them on their own is a more of a net win than trying to use a specific implementation of that decoder library as a club to open up other software that happens to use it.
Ace17 8y ago
> Really? People are going to complain because a licence is too free? ... Software licenses exist to balance the compromise between "user freedom" and "vendor freedom". In this context, speaking about "freedom" in general ('too free') doesn't make too much sense. A definition of "free" only meaning "no contractual restrictions" is an overly simplified one, which doesn't recognize the existence of the compromise. BTW, this distinction is by no means specific to software - think "employer's freedom" vs "employee's freedom".

Comments like this will only lead to arguing/flaming/etc.

Since Vorbis, we've all worked to make the codec code as restriction free as possible because we need wide deployment for success. It's more important for a royalty-free codec to win than for these codebases to be copyleft. Once AV1 is the default solution, we can start worrying about software licenses :)

laken 8y ago

The complaint usually comes in due to an interpretation of "free." The author includes RMS' opinion, which is true for this particular piece of software, though in many cases it's a warranted complaint. It gets into a political argument usually, but it boils down to this argument: "If I don't require copyleft, then I can't always guarantee that users of my code will get all the freedoms I provided to them."

class4behavior 8y ago
Here in detail: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- groestl 8y ago
  Maybe I missed something, but this essay seems to deal with the relationship of Open Source v Free Software, not Free Software v Copyleft Software.
  - class4behavior 8y ago
    You don't need an explicit essay on that comparison. Morever it's not vs Copyleft, but why copyleft is generally material to the purpose of Free Software. In the linked entry Stallman primarily explains what is understood as Free Software. The comparison with Open Source merely serves as a device to illustrate the nuances in a more relatable way. >Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.
    - groestl 8y ago
      I find that distinction very much of interest, and sure enough, RMS also has an explicit text available which deals with that matter more directly [0]. While free software protects the freedoms of the user only, copyleft software protects the freedoms of the developer as well. Both types of software are ethical (as mentioned in [1]), so it comes down to personal choice of the original author, who can use it as a tool to ensure their goals. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

jbk 8y ago

Yes, we have had some remarks. VideoLAN usually does copyleft (LGPL) projects, so it needed clarifications for our community.

prablenha 8y ago
I don't understand how can someone argue "your licence is too free, you should make it more restrictive so fewer people can use your software", but what do I know
- rbultje 8y ago
  The concern is typically from developers (the copyright owners), not end users.
- zodiac 8y ago
  If your definition of a good license is "the terms are as unrestrictive as possible" why not release all software into the public domain? There's legitimate arguments to be made for more restrictive licenses, even if I don't agree with them all the time.
  - oddevan 8y ago
    IIRC, "public domain" means different things in different countries, and can make it hard to enforce as a software license. See https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain A BSD-style license is probably the closest to public domain while still being easy to read/understand.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  The choice makes no difference to who can use this version of this software, but copyleft protects users from future derivatives getting locked away in exchange for forbidding proprietary derivatives altogether. In the case of popularising a video codec the rise of some proprietary derivative seems an acceptable risk but for some random program what's the upside?

adrianmonk 8y ago

I look at it as a trade-off between short-term freedom and long-term freedom. BSD gives more short-term freedom. GPL trades some short-term freedom to attempt to better preserve long-term freedom. To me that trade is a reasonable strategy, but I also think BSD has a hidden(?) benefit on a different front in the battle for openness. If you have a libre implementation of something but nobody uses it, it's not much use. If the availability of BSD-licensed code induces a corporation to use that instead of developing their own proprietary technology, it might be a net win, especially if that big corporation has a lot of influence over users.

mjevans 8y ago
What we want here are more users of the AV1 codec. As such, an implementation that doesn't suck that anyone can use and MIGHT want to contribute fixes/optimizations upstream so they don't have to carry them on their own is a more of a net win than trying to use a specific implementation of that decoder library as a club to open up other software that happens to use it.

Ace17 8y ago

> Really? People are going to complain because a licence is too free? ... Software licenses exist to balance the compromise between "user freedom" and "vendor freedom". In this context, speaking about "freedom" in general ('too free') doesn't make too much sense. A definition of "free" only meaning "no contractual restrictions" is an overly simplified one, which doesn't recognize the existence of the compromise. BTW, this distinction is by no means specific to software - think "employer's freedom" vs "employee's freedom".