5 ms·

But it's good to have the option, no? Always depends what you try to license, and in some cases I think it's good to have a very strong copyleft license availab

by _frkl 7y ago

But it's good to have the option, no? Always depends what you try to license, and in some cases I think it's good to have a very strong copyleft license available. gcc might not be it, other software might. Also, I think saying 'protect' is quite one-sided, and signalling virtue while at the same time unfairly painting a copy left license like Parity as sorta predatory. Just my opinion, of course, but I wish every piece of software in the world was copy left licensed. I know that is unrealistic on millions of levels, but I still think it's a valid course of action to try to get us at least a tiny bit in that direction, and choosing a license that restricts a few small parts of select freedoms in exchange for that. Just because OSI has been seen as the champion of open source in the past doesn't mean we all agree that was justified, and a good thing. Most people think differently to me in this regard, or don't really care, but this is not and will never be a settled argument.

JoshTriplett 7y ago
We don't need more non-FOSS licenses in the world. I'd like to see more use of copyleft as well, but the whole point of copyleft is to keep software FOSS. If the license isn't FOSS to begin with, that defeats the purpose.
- _frkl 7y ago
  See, thats where we disagree. And thats perfectly fine, but i do honestly think we need at least one more copyleft license, one that actually works. FOSS ist just a bunch if words, which, apparently mean different things to you than they do to me. Maybe you are going to say that my interpretation is invalid, and i should be accepting the status quo. But well, that just doesn't make any sense to me... To me, it really boils down to this: I dont care that much about the freedom of people who dont care about their users freedom, i think restricting those peoples freedom is an acceptable tradeoff. With Parity, for example, as long as you open up your code you can use everything licensed with it. If you don't, or you use other non free software then parity licensed software doesn't really make anything worse to you as a user, since you already accept non open source code in your infrastructure/project. Parity might not be the best license ever, although i like it quite a bit, but i think it is at least a very valid attempt to fix a problem some people see as problem. You apparently dont think there is a problem, or its not that bad compared to such a solution, but that doesn't mean there's a guarantee you are right. Nor I.
  - JoshTriplett 7y ago
    There are two critical reasons I think it's important to stick to the letter of the OSD and DFSG: First, the OSD and DFSG are a line in the sand, a focal point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) . If we abandon that line, we lose much of the ability to push back on not-quite-open-source licenses. That's why not-quite-open-source licenses are in some ways a bigger problem than proprietary software, because they seem like such a small compromise, but they would move the Overton window. And second, in the specific case of Parity's non-FOSS license, there's a specific reason to reject it. It goes beyond the reach of copyright law into contract territory, and it would cause serious problems in toolchain software and developer software. (For the record, I acknowledge the problem you're referring to. I just consider the above problems much worse.)
    - kemitchell 7y ago
      Defaults can be important, but the game to win isn't software licensing. That's just a play in bigger games like end-user rights and developer autonomy and dominating a market niche. Means, not the end. Unless it's really all about righteous cred strictly within the software industry itself, for self-edification or advancement. Meanwhile, nearsightedness on licensing politics allowed the frame to move out from under licensing long ago. SaaS. Data control. App Stores. Developer SDKs. As for Parity, GPLv3 has already been enforced under both contract and copyright, and already goes further than derivative works. But a license matters because of its rules, not how they work. Legal implementation details are just that. As for toolchain and developer software, Parity intentionally sets out to do for those what the GPLs tried to do for libraries, frameworks, and applications. If there's a good reason only some kinds of software---and some kinds of software developers---and only those get a gold star for their copyleft, I haven't read it yet. What I have read boils down to fear or deprecation of copyleft itself: keep it penned in where it is. We only needed it to get where we are now.
      - JoshTriplett 7y ago
        > the game to win isn't software licensing. That's just a play in bigger games like end-user rights and developer autonomy and dominating a market niche. Means, not the end. End-user rights and developer autonomy are intertwined with software licensing. If we start using licenses compromising those rights and that autonomy, we lose what we're trying to win. Let's not burn down the progress we have. It's not acceptable to give up freedom zero, the freedom to use the software for any purpose. > But a license matters because of its rules, not how they work. Legal implementation details are just that. The limits of copyright's reach are a useful Schelling point as well. To a first approximation, they're a good limit on license reach. > What I have read boils down to fear or deprecation of copyleft itself On the contrary, I very much like the idea of strong copyleft. But there's a limit. Would you favor a license that claims everything on the same disk must be open and compatible with it? Or a license that says if you ever distribute proprietary software you can't use it? Or a license that does the same but defines "proprietary software" as "everything incompatible with the XYZ license"? How about a license that prohibits developing permissively licensed software, or software you don't share? (See Parity's clause saying "You don’t develop, operate, or analyze other software with it for anyone outside the team developing it.") The "Parity" license goes much too far, throwing away freedom zero, and worse, it claims to be open source. Also, I find it interesting that Parity, while claiming to favor strong copyleft, specifically references an organization and license that's pro-permissive-licensing and anti-copyleft. > As for toolchain and developer software, Parity intentionally sets out to do for those what the GPLs tried to do for libraries, frameworks, and applications. Again, freedom zero: the freedom to use the software for any purpose. The GPL keeps libraries, frameworks, applications, toolchains, and developer software FOSS; it doesn't prevent using (as opposed to building upon) that software to develop software under incompatible licenses. If it had, people couldn't use Emacs to write software under the Parity license. ;)

by _frkl 7y ago

JoshTriplett 7y ago

We don't need more non-FOSS licenses in the world. I'd like to see more use of copyleft as well, but the whole point of copyleft is to keep software FOSS. If the license isn't FOSS to begin with, that defeats the purpose.

_frkl 7y ago
See, thats where we disagree. And thats perfectly fine, but i do honestly think we need at least one more copyleft license, one that actually works. FOSS ist just a bunch if words, which, apparently mean different things to you than they do to me. Maybe you are going to say that my interpretation is invalid, and i should be accepting the status quo. But well, that just doesn't make any sense to me... To me, it really boils down to this: I dont care that much about the freedom of people who dont care about their users freedom, i think restricting those peoples freedom is an acceptable tradeoff. With Parity, for example, as long as you open up your code you can use everything licensed with it. If you don't, or you use other non free software then parity licensed software doesn't really make anything worse to you as a user, since you already accept non open source code in your infrastructure/project. Parity might not be the best license ever, although i like it quite a bit, but i think it is at least a very valid attempt to fix a problem some people see as problem. You apparently dont think there is a problem, or its not that bad compared to such a solution, but that doesn't mean there's a guarantee you are right. Nor I.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  There are two critical reasons I think it's important to stick to the letter of the OSD and DFSG: First, the OSD and DFSG are a line in the sand, a focal point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) . If we abandon that line, we lose much of the ability to push back on not-quite-open-source licenses. That's why not-quite-open-source licenses are in some ways a bigger problem than proprietary software, because they seem like such a small compromise, but they would move the Overton window. And second, in the specific case of Parity's non-FOSS license, there's a specific reason to reject it. It goes beyond the reach of copyright law into contract territory, and it would cause serious problems in toolchain software and developer software. (For the record, I acknowledge the problem you're referring to. I just consider the above problems much worse.)
  - kemitchell 7y ago
    Defaults can be important, but the game to win isn't software licensing. That's just a play in bigger games like end-user rights and developer autonomy and dominating a market niche. Means, not the end. Unless it's really all about righteous cred strictly within the software industry itself, for self-edification or advancement. Meanwhile, nearsightedness on licensing politics allowed the frame to move out from under licensing long ago. SaaS. Data control. App Stores. Developer SDKs. As for Parity, GPLv3 has already been enforced under both contract and copyright, and already goes further than derivative works. But a license matters because of its rules, not how they work. Legal implementation details are just that. As for toolchain and developer software, Parity intentionally sets out to do for those what the GPLs tried to do for libraries, frameworks, and applications. If there's a good reason only some kinds of software---and some kinds of software developers---and only those get a gold star for their copyleft, I haven't read it yet. What I have read boils down to fear or deprecation of copyleft itself: keep it penned in where it is. We only needed it to get where we are now.
    - JoshTriplett 7y ago
      > the game to win isn't software licensing. That's just a play in bigger games like end-user rights and developer autonomy and dominating a market niche. Means, not the end. End-user rights and developer autonomy are intertwined with software licensing. If we start using licenses compromising those rights and that autonomy, we lose what we're trying to win. Let's not burn down the progress we have. It's not acceptable to give up freedom zero, the freedom to use the software for any purpose. > But a license matters because of its rules, not how they work. Legal implementation details are just that. The limits of copyright's reach are a useful Schelling point as well. To a first approximation, they're a good limit on license reach. > What I have read boils down to fear or deprecation of copyleft itself On the contrary, I very much like the idea of strong copyleft. But there's a limit. Would you favor a license that claims everything on the same disk must be open and compatible with it? Or a license that says if you ever distribute proprietary software you can't use it? Or a license that does the same but defines "proprietary software" as "everything incompatible with the XYZ license"? How about a license that prohibits developing permissively licensed software, or software you don't share? (See Parity's clause saying "You don’t develop, operate, or analyze other software with it for anyone outside the team developing it.") The "Parity" license goes much too far, throwing away freedom zero, and worse, it claims to be open source. Also, I find it interesting that Parity, while claiming to favor strong copyleft, specifically references an organization and license that's pro-permissive-licensing and anti-copyleft. > As for toolchain and developer software, Parity intentionally sets out to do for those what the GPLs tried to do for libraries, frameworks, and applications. Again, freedom zero: the freedom to use the software for any purpose. The GPL keeps libraries, frameworks, applications, toolchains, and developer software FOSS; it doesn't prevent using (as opposed to building upon) that software to develop software under incompatible licenses. If it had, people couldn't use Emacs to write software under the Parity license. ;)