4 ms·

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 ju

by _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

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. ;)