2 ms·

I told you why. I'm not comfortable legally enforcing that preference. The only thing that needs to be accepted is that laws and ethics aren't necessarily equiv

I told you why. I'm not comfortable legally enforcing that preference. The only thing that needs to be accepted is that laws and ethics aren't necessarily equivalent. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. If you accept that, then it's easy to see how one might choose a permissive license even if one finds certain actions allowed by that permissive license to be unethical. If you think laws and ethics are the same or should be, then I suppose that's a deeper disagreement and not one I mean to explore here. :-)

enriquto 6y ago
A good choice in your case is to release your software without a license at all. I really like this option: it is elegant (no spurious license files and headers polluting your program), morally irreproachable, and it gets the job done (only people who are ridiculously obsessed with legal papers will not be able to use your software). The only problem is that if your software becomes somehow well-known, you'll be bugged to no end to release it into any license, and you will need to develop an anti-spam filter to automatically delete these mails.
- burntsushi 6y ago
  Yes, well, I have many software projects that are well-known, so I am cursed with a good problem to have. I therefore must balance my ideology with pragmatism. I was a little coy above. I said that I "release my code into the public domain to the extent possible." In practice, I dual license my code under the UNLICENSE (public domain, effectively) and the MIT. I do this because the UNLICENSE is unsuitable either because people are too risk averse for it or because public domain is for one reason or another not recognized in their jurisdiction. I didn't elaborate on this in my original comment because it's not really pertinent. I think. But yes, I can't put code out there without a license because I ultimately want people to use it. And I've made the mistake of using a license that people don't like to use before (the WTFPL). You do indeed get bugged quite a bit.
- ziml77 6y ago
  In the US, releasing code without a license means that the code is automatically subject to standard copyright. By the time that expires, no one will even be able to run the code anymore.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    No one who believes in US laws, that is.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  Not at all! In 90% of legal systems copyright applies automatically and not having a license makes your software closed source by default. The concept of copyright existed long before software licenses and long before the (c) symbol. It often applies automatically if you sing a song in a park, scribble an article on a napkin, paint a giraffe on your car - no matter how "casual" your artwork might seem.
ReactiveJelly 6y ago
> If you think laws and ethics are the same or should be Well, there's two ways to do that. I think we would agree that my ethics shouldn't change to match the law, because the law might be wrong. But the law should change to match my ethics, if and only if my ethics are right. (Figuring out what ethics are right is left as an exercise) So if I don't want my project to be used outside the terms of the AGPL, I don't see the problem with releasing it under the AGPL. If you're against all forms of intellectual property you could just say that and clear things up. But I'd rather not give up my IP rights before corporations do.
- burntsushi 6y ago
  > If you're against all forms of intellectual property you could just say that and clear things up. Yes, I am. But the validity of intellectual property isn't relevant to my argument in general I think. It just so happens to be true in my case. I'm not sure laws should change to match our ethics to be honest. But I think that's part of the "deeper disagreement" I alluded to in my parent comment.
zokier 6y ago
> I'm not comfortable legally enforcing that preference. But licenses are not only for legal purpose, they also serve to communicate the authors preference for the prospective users. Of course you can communicate it otherwise, but using a common license is generally pretty easy way of doing it. But I think it is really important that the preference is communicated in some sufficiently clear and explicit manner.
- burntsushi 6y ago
  I don't think I should have to say "don't plagiarize" me every time I publish something. If I did do that, the funny thing is that it might end up having the exact opposite effect! Human nature and all that. I think licenses communicate legal things. Some things, like copyleft, use copyright as a hack to inject its ethics into the legal system. But that's one specific and very intentional case, and is definitely not something that is commonplace among software licenses. (Typically, when people try to do it, it has a Not Good outcome.)
  - zokier 6y ago
    > I don't think I should have to say "don't plagiarize" me every time I publish something No, but placing something to public domain is easily interpreted as explicit "please plagiarize", so it would be good to counter that message with something if that is not the message intended.
    - burntsushi 6y ago
      > but placing something to public domain is easily interpreted as explicit "please plagiarize" I've never heard of anyone interpreting public domain as any such thing. Whenever I get an idea from the SQLite source code for example, I have never for even a single moment ever considered plagiarizing it. If public domain were really treated as you say, then movies and TV shows about Sherlock Holmes wouldn't begin (or end) with "Based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle." They'd just say, "Sherlock Holmes was conceived, written and created by Foo Johnson." But of course nobody does that, because plagiarism is unethical.

enriquto 6y ago

A good choice in your case is to release your software without a license at all. I really like this option: it is elegant (no spurious license files and headers polluting your program), morally irreproachable, and it gets the job done (only people who are ridiculously obsessed with legal papers will not be able to use your software). The only problem is that if your software becomes somehow well-known, you'll be bugged to no end to release it into any license, and you will need to develop an anti-spam filter to automatically delete these mails.

burntsushi 6y ago
Yes, well, I have many software projects that are well-known, so I am cursed with a good problem to have. I therefore must balance my ideology with pragmatism. I was a little coy above. I said that I "release my code into the public domain to the extent possible." In practice, I dual license my code under the UNLICENSE (public domain, effectively) and the MIT. I do this because the UNLICENSE is unsuitable either because people are too risk averse for it or because public domain is for one reason or another not recognized in their jurisdiction. I didn't elaborate on this in my original comment because it's not really pertinent. I think. But yes, I can't put code out there without a license because I ultimately want people to use it. And I've made the mistake of using a license that people don't like to use before (the WTFPL). You do indeed get bugged quite a bit.
ziml77 6y ago
In the US, releasing code without a license means that the code is automatically subject to standard copyright. By the time that expires, no one will even be able to run the code anymore.
- enriquto 6y ago
  No one who believes in US laws, that is.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Not at all! In 90% of legal systems copyright applies automatically and not having a license makes your software closed source by default. The concept of copyright existed long before software licenses and long before the (c) symbol. It often applies automatically if you sing a song in a park, scribble an article on a napkin, paint a giraffe on your car - no matter how "casual" your artwork might seem.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago

> If you think laws and ethics are the same or should be Well, there's two ways to do that. I think we would agree that my ethics shouldn't change to match the law, because the law might be wrong. But the law should change to match my ethics, if and only if my ethics are right. (Figuring out what ethics are right is left as an exercise) So if I don't want my project to be used outside the terms of the AGPL, I don't see the problem with releasing it under the AGPL. If you're against all forms of intellectual property you could just say that and clear things up. But I'd rather not give up my IP rights before corporations do.

burntsushi 6y ago
> If you're against all forms of intellectual property you could just say that and clear things up. Yes, I am. But the validity of intellectual property isn't relevant to my argument in general I think. It just so happens to be true in my case. I'm not sure laws should change to match our ethics to be honest. But I think that's part of the "deeper disagreement" I alluded to in my parent comment.

zokier 6y ago

> I'm not comfortable legally enforcing that preference. But licenses are not only for legal purpose, they also serve to communicate the authors preference for the prospective users. Of course you can communicate it otherwise, but using a common license is generally pretty easy way of doing it. But I think it is really important that the preference is communicated in some sufficiently clear and explicit manner.

burntsushi 6y ago
I don't think I should have to say "don't plagiarize" me every time I publish something. If I did do that, the funny thing is that it might end up having the exact opposite effect! Human nature and all that. I think licenses communicate legal things. Some things, like copyleft, use copyright as a hack to inject its ethics into the legal system. But that's one specific and very intentional case, and is definitely not something that is commonplace among software licenses. (Typically, when people try to do it, it has a Not Good outcome.)
- zokier 6y ago
  > I don't think I should have to say "don't plagiarize" me every time I publish something No, but placing something to public domain is easily interpreted as explicit "please plagiarize", so it would be good to counter that message with something if that is not the message intended.
  - burntsushi 6y ago
    > but placing something to public domain is easily interpreted as explicit "please plagiarize" I've never heard of anyone interpreting public domain as any such thing. Whenever I get an idea from the SQLite source code for example, I have never for even a single moment ever considered plagiarizing it. If public domain were really treated as you say, then movies and TV shows about Sherlock Holmes wouldn't begin (or end) with "Based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle." They'd just say, "Sherlock Holmes was conceived, written and created by Foo Johnson." But of course nobody does that, because plagiarism is unethical.