5 ms·

People should chose a software license the way they choose a screwdriver, not the way they chose a religion. Choose the tool that accomplishes the job. Do you

People should chose a software license the way they choose a screwdriver, not the way they chose a religion. Choose the tool that accomplishes the job. Do you want to avoid commercial exploitation without repayment-in-kind in the form of contributing back? Use GPL or similar (although this is getting creaky in the case of SaaS deployments). Do you want total world domination for your new protocol? Release a reference implementation under MIT or similar. License debates go off the rails because too often people try to compress a two-dimensional discussion (ideology and distribution rights) onto a single dimension and talk past each other. So this blog post seems to say: "I have changed my religion." To which I say: "Consider choosing licenses more strategically."

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I'd s/religion/principles/, and then it becomes clearer why the topic isn't completely arbitrary and may have moral weight.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Religion is a fair analogy, because it has a lot of weight to people who agree and no weight at all to people who believe something different.
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  No, that substitution completely misses my point. One can have deep and well thought out principles and morals and apply that to the strategic selection of a license, and also in choosing which projects are worthy of contribution. Ideology-based decisions are in a different category. When I look at RMS, I see someone who has thought deeply about the implications of various licenses, and has decided firmly what kind of projects are worthy of his time. He has an agenda, and acts upon it thoughtfully. Some of his followers are not nearly so thoughtful. All I am saying here is this: before choosing a license, be clear in your own mind about your agenda.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    As an example to back up your point RMS has explicitly supported the use of non-GPL licenses for codecs as a strategic move to avoid being shut out of that market by network effects.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Do you have a link to anything he's written about this? It sounds interesting.
      - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
    - xenadu02 7y ago
      RMS has also endorsed selling exceptions to the GPL, see https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions GPL/AGPL + fee for exceptions seems like a reasonable model to promote freedom and fairness.
munificent 7y ago
> People should chose a software license the way they choose a screwdriver, not the way they chose a religion. But your claim of what people should do is itself an ideological argument. Software creators have just as much right to choose their licenses for principled reasons as utilitarian ones. Heck, they could pick a license based on the number of contractions in the license text if they wanted. It's their software and their right to determine which reasons they care about most.
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  > It's their software and their right to determine which reasons they care about most. We are pretty much in agreement here. All I ask is that people think for themselves, rather than farming out that decision to that persuasive sloganeer they recently met.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
> Do you want total world domination for your new protocol? Release a reference implementation under MIT or similar. Not sure this would be the right strategy in this case (assuming by world domination you mean your protocol gets maximal use). Because your protocol/impl could be forked into a closed variant with proprietary extensions, defeating the purpose of an open protocol. At which point you might be stuck maintaining the mundane, laborious base code, and others do the exciting stuff and take over your project (aka embrace-extend-extinguish). As has happened multiple times back in the last decade when we still saw value in using standardized protocols such as WebDav, XMPP, etc. For these cases, FSF recommends LGPL instead.
- anderspitman 7y ago
  Sorry this is off-topic, but can you expound a bit more on the history of WebDAV in this context?
  - tannhaeuser 7y ago
    Sorry I don't have really more knowledge above what's in the protocol specs and on Wikipedia.
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  Well you are talking about control of the product road map, which isn't really something that the license can do much about. GPL is just as forkable as MIT or BSD. And as to being "stuck" maintaining code that you don't want to... well, just stop already. Control over the evolution of a protocol isn't easy to bake into a license. It is probably better to look at tools like trademark where you can require passing compliance tests to fly a logo, for instance. Again, be clear about your goals. Controlling the evolution of a protocol forever is different from launching and declaring victory once it takes on a life of its own. Both are legit, but require different tool kits.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

I'd s/religion/principles/, and then it becomes clearer why the topic isn't completely arbitrary and may have moral weight.

whatshisface 7y ago
Religion is a fair analogy, because it has a lot of weight to people who agree and no weight at all to people who believe something different.
dbcurtis 7y ago
No, that substitution completely misses my point. One can have deep and well thought out principles and morals and apply that to the strategic selection of a license, and also in choosing which projects are worthy of contribution. Ideology-based decisions are in a different category. When I look at RMS, I see someone who has thought deeply about the implications of various licenses, and has decided firmly what kind of projects are worthy of his time. He has an agenda, and acts upon it thoughtfully. Some of his followers are not nearly so thoughtful. All I am saying here is this: before choosing a license, be clear in your own mind about your agenda.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  As an example to back up your point RMS has explicitly supported the use of non-GPL licenses for codecs as a strategic move to avoid being shut out of that market by network effects.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Do you have a link to anything he's written about this? It sounds interesting.
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
  - xenadu02 7y ago
    RMS has also endorsed selling exceptions to the GPL, see https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions GPL/AGPL + fee for exceptions seems like a reasonable model to promote freedom and fairness.

munificent 7y ago

> People should chose a software license the way they choose a screwdriver, not the way they chose a religion. But your claim of what people should do is itself an ideological argument. Software creators have just as much right to choose their licenses for principled reasons as utilitarian ones. Heck, they could pick a license based on the number of contractions in the license text if they wanted. It's their software and their right to determine which reasons they care about most.

dbcurtis 7y ago
> It's their software and their right to determine which reasons they care about most. We are pretty much in agreement here. All I ask is that people think for themselves, rather than farming out that decision to that persuasive sloganeer they recently met.

tannhaeuser 7y ago

> Do you want total world domination for your new protocol? Release a reference implementation under MIT or similar. Not sure this would be the right strategy in this case (assuming by world domination you mean your protocol gets maximal use). Because your protocol/impl could be forked into a closed variant with proprietary extensions, defeating the purpose of an open protocol. At which point you might be stuck maintaining the mundane, laborious base code, and others do the exciting stuff and take over your project (aka embrace-extend-extinguish). As has happened multiple times back in the last decade when we still saw value in using standardized protocols such as WebDav, XMPP, etc. For these cases, FSF recommends LGPL instead.

anderspitman 7y ago
Sorry this is off-topic, but can you expound a bit more on the history of WebDAV in this context?
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  Sorry I don't have really more knowledge above what's in the protocol specs and on Wikipedia.
dbcurtis 7y ago
Well you are talking about control of the product road map, which isn't really something that the license can do much about. GPL is just as forkable as MIT or BSD. And as to being "stuck" maintaining code that you don't want to... well, just stop already. Control over the evolution of a protocol isn't easy to bake into a license. It is probably better to look at tools like trademark where you can require passing compliance tests to fly a logo, for instance. Again, be clear about your goals. Controlling the evolution of a protocol forever is different from launching and declaring victory once it takes on a life of its own. Both are legit, but require different tool kits.