3 ms·

You can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT li

You can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT licensed software (or if you are picky about attribution CC0)? Couldn't the existence of MIT or CC0 licensed open source projects disprove that > that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright because these licenses are basically blank checks to do with the software whatever you want? They don't really depend on the existence of any IP laws.

gred 8y ago
I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; your rights as the copyright holder are the only thing allowing you to authoritatively stipulate that your software may only be used in such-and-such a manner, under so-and-so conditions.
- sgeisler 8y ago
  Yes, I understand that, but if there weren't copyright laws we wouldn't need a CC0 license for example, because it would be the natural state of affairs: you can do whatever you want. And afaik MIT, BSD and Apache just add the duty of mentioning the author, which has no practical implications on the usage of the software. At least I wouldn't care if someone actually writes my name somewhere. If someone asked me to relicense software I wrote as CC0 (and it was formerly MIT) I'd happily do so. That means that the open source movement doesn't depend on IP laws. Some projects might still depend on it, like the linux kernel (because of GPL) but bitcoin for example doesn't (MIT). Both strategies work in practice. ADDENDUM: What I want to say is: for many projects IP laws don't have any positive effects, they just add friction by requiring the author to add (and think about) a license.
- jancsika 8y ago
  > I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; GP's point is that 3-clause BSD-licensed software makes such a modest requirement upon licensees that it's functionally equivalent to software in an environment where copyright law doesn't exist. I also assume that means that the GGP is implying that the GPL's "golden rule" requirement is a necessary restriction to ensure a healthy FLOSS ecosystem. Or at least that the FLOSS ecosystem wouldn't be as vibrant if 3-clause BSD were the only type of FLOSS license.

gred 8y ago

I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; your rights as the copyright holder are the only thing allowing you to authoritatively stipulate that your software may only be used in such-and-such a manner, under so-and-so conditions.

sgeisler 8y ago
Yes, I understand that, but if there weren't copyright laws we wouldn't need a CC0 license for example, because it would be the natural state of affairs: you can do whatever you want. And afaik MIT, BSD and Apache just add the duty of mentioning the author, which has no practical implications on the usage of the software. At least I wouldn't care if someone actually writes my name somewhere. If someone asked me to relicense software I wrote as CC0 (and it was formerly MIT) I'd happily do so. That means that the open source movement doesn't depend on IP laws. Some projects might still depend on it, like the linux kernel (because of GPL) but bitcoin for example doesn't (MIT). Both strategies work in practice. ADDENDUM: What I want to say is: for many projects IP laws don't have any positive effects, they just add friction by requiring the author to add (and think about) a license.
jancsika 8y ago
> I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; GP's point is that 3-clause BSD-licensed software makes such a modest requirement upon licensees that it's functionally equivalent to software in an environment where copyright law doesn't exist. I also assume that means that the GGP is implying that the GPL's "golden rule" requirement is a necessary restriction to ensure a healthy FLOSS ecosystem. Or at least that the FLOSS ecosystem wouldn't be as vibrant if 3-clause BSD were the only type of FLOSS license.