3 ms·

> If the author of some software has a general good-faith position (...) The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt o

by nuerow 5y ago

> If the author of some software has a general good-faith position (...) The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith? Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.

horsawlarway 5y ago
> For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith? As someone reading through this: Yes. I find that argument both reasonable and fair. The author is free to ask for compensation up front in exchange for the tool they've built. They can also just simply refuse to license it in the first place. But a license that I can violate if the author simply changes their mind is quicksand: Nothing of value can be built on it, because it might sink at ANY POINT. It's literally unusable as a tool.
ipaddr 5y ago
Musicians can say they would rather someone not use a song but they sold their rights a long time ago. Very few own those songs they wish others not to use.
margalabargala 5y ago
The "good faith position" weasel words, along with the rest of my comment regarding the whole thing being a spectrum of subjective reasonableness, serve to make it clear that this is a highly subjective topic where you and I have different opinions. Where I personally draw the line is something being presented as a "general purpose tool", versus as an exclusive work. When Stuart Stemple created a pink pigment and granted license to use it to "everyone except Anish Kapoor", I thought it was a great artistic statement, but as a practical matter I think it's unreasonable. It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. Saying "you can use this if you meet these criteria (e.g. having no criteria, having paid me money, etc)" is okay, but saying "everyone can use this EXCEPT if I decide I don't want you too" is not. In my opinion.

by nuerow 5y ago

horsawlarway 5y ago

> For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith? As someone reading through this: Yes. I find that argument both reasonable and fair. The author is free to ask for compensation up front in exchange for the tool they've built. They can also just simply refuse to license it in the first place. But a license that I can violate if the author simply changes their mind is quicksand: Nothing of value can be built on it, because it might sink at ANY POINT. It's literally unusable as a tool.

ipaddr 5y ago

Musicians can say they would rather someone not use a song but they sold their rights a long time ago. Very few own those songs they wish others not to use.

margalabargala 5y ago

The "good faith position" weasel words, along with the rest of my comment regarding the whole thing being a spectrum of subjective reasonableness, serve to make it clear that this is a highly subjective topic where you and I have different opinions. Where I personally draw the line is something being presented as a "general purpose tool", versus as an exclusive work. When Stuart Stemple created a pink pigment and granted license to use it to "everyone except Anish Kapoor", I thought it was a great artistic statement, but as a practical matter I think it's unreasonable. It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. Saying "you can use this if you meet these criteria (e.g. having no criteria, having paid me money, etc)" is okay, but saying "everyone can use this EXCEPT if I decide I don't want you too" is not. In my opinion.