4 ms·

This kind of thing feels like such a waste of humanity's time. Is there an approach you can choose early in a project on that prevents ever getting in trouble l

by ajkjk 5y ago

This kind of thing feels like such a waste of humanity's time. Is there an approach you can choose early in a project on that prevents ever getting in trouble later? I guess if I start some big library I will hope that everyone assigns the copyright for their contributions entirely to the project so that I never have to go through that nonsense. But I guess that has other ramifications.

ilammy 5y ago
> Is there an approach you can choose early in a project on that prevents ever getting in trouble later? 1. Never accept outside contributions in principle. Works fine for SQLite, for example. 2. Pick a well-known copyleft license and just stick with it. Works fine for Linux, for example. 3. Use a well-known permissive license that allows redistribution of modified code under a different license without burdensome conditions. Works for lots of projects. 4. Force contributors to assign copyright to an entity that people will trust forever. Ostensibly works for FSF folks, academia, etc. 5. Don't worry about it. Let others pay for lawyers doing law stuff. You can delay making the decision until you have at least a dozen of actual contributors.
- varajelle 5y ago
  There is also 6. Have a CLA (contributor license agreement) that lets the project the right to change the licence. (Different from 4. because there is no copyright transfer).
  - Avamander 5y ago
    CLAs are shaky, it might not be valid in some countries that e.g. do not allow reassigning copyright.
    - varajelle 5y ago
      That's why CLA is not copyright assignment.
      - Avamander 5y ago
        That's why you can't on a whim write a CLA, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't CLAs what try reassigning rights directly or indirectly that they really can not.
chrismsimpson 5y ago
Zero clause MIT or BSD or the Unlicense are seemingly the only licenses that protect from the tyranny of copyleft licenses.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Why do you call copyleft "tyranny"? If overnight, every single piece of open source software were somehow magically relicensed to AGPLv3 only, would there be any negative consequences at all for anyone besides people who wanted to write non-free software?
  - ajkjk 5y ago
    > besides people who wanted to write non-free software? Would there be any negative consequences besides the negative consequences? No, I guess not. Lots of people want to write non-free software, for instance for their jobs or businesses or hobbies.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      But users can do even less with non-free software than they can with copyleft software, so calling the latter "tyranny" while simultaneously being okay with the former makes no sense at all.
      - ajkjk 5y ago
        It really doesn't. You're pretending like non-free software has no value and that's clearly nonsense. There's no argument with that pretense because it has no bearing in reality.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        > You're pretending like non-free software has no value I'm not saying it has no value or that it should all go away. I'm saying that its value doesn't come from being non-free, so it would be better if it had to be free instead.
bawolff 5y ago
I think rolling your own license is like rolling your own crypto: just say no.

by ajkjk 5y ago

ilammy 5y ago

> Is there an approach you can choose early in a project on that prevents ever getting in trouble later? 1. Never accept outside contributions in principle. Works fine for SQLite, for example. 2. Pick a well-known copyleft license and just stick with it. Works fine for Linux, for example. 3. Use a well-known permissive license that allows redistribution of modified code under a different license without burdensome conditions. Works for lots of projects. 4. Force contributors to assign copyright to an entity that people will trust forever. Ostensibly works for FSF folks, academia, etc. 5. Don't worry about it. Let others pay for lawyers doing law stuff. You can delay making the decision until you have at least a dozen of actual contributors.

varajelle 5y ago
There is also 6. Have a CLA (contributor license agreement) that lets the project the right to change the licence. (Different from 4. because there is no copyright transfer).
- Avamander 5y ago
  CLAs are shaky, it might not be valid in some countries that e.g. do not allow reassigning copyright.
  - varajelle 5y ago
    That's why CLA is not copyright assignment.
    - Avamander 5y ago
      That's why you can't on a whim write a CLA, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't CLAs what try reassigning rights directly or indirectly that they really can not.

chrismsimpson 5y ago

Zero clause MIT or BSD or the Unlicense are seemingly the only licenses that protect from the tyranny of copyleft licenses.

josephcsible 5y ago
Why do you call copyleft "tyranny"? If overnight, every single piece of open source software were somehow magically relicensed to AGPLv3 only, would there be any negative consequences at all for anyone besides people who wanted to write non-free software?
- ajkjk 5y ago
  > besides people who wanted to write non-free software? Would there be any negative consequences besides the negative consequences? No, I guess not. Lots of people want to write non-free software, for instance for their jobs or businesses or hobbies.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But users can do even less with non-free software than they can with copyleft software, so calling the latter "tyranny" while simultaneously being okay with the former makes no sense at all.
    - ajkjk 5y ago
      It really doesn't. You're pretending like non-free software has no value and that's clearly nonsense. There's no argument with that pretense because it has no bearing in reality.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > You're pretending like non-free software has no value I'm not saying it has no value or that it should all go away. I'm saying that its value doesn't come from being non-free, so it would be better if it had to be free instead.

bawolff 5y ago

I think rolling your own license is like rolling your own crypto: just say no.