5 ms·

In general, Debian has been rather strict with what licenses it allows in its repositories. The right to transfer copyrighted works may also open people to leg

In general, Debian has been rather strict with what licenses it allows in its repositories. The right to transfer copyrighted works may also open people to legal action from employers in some countries outside the US. i.e. the identical contract text can have two different meanings depending where it is signed. I prefer to license most works as Apache 2.0, and this ensures people can do whatever they need to get the use-case solved in whatever legal obligation they are encumbered within. Note, implicit personal copyright is always in effect... The original author(s) must explicitly state the work is public-domain/CC0, or you could be in violation. From what I've seen over the years, there are a few groups of trouble makers: 1. Companies from countries that have zero software copyright/patent laws. So will cycle GPL works into the closed-source production pipeline in commercial settings. i.e. the culture views the US concept of owning ideas as absurd. 2. Folks that think linking against a LGPL shared object for compatibility reasons obligates developers divulge source-code. Note, there is source code released under several different licenses for legal compatibility reasons. i.e. the work may be fine with static linking under one version, and at the same time violate LGPL with the identical binary. 3. submarine attacks... malicious/foolish folks that distribute works they have zero legal right to re-license, re-publish, or possess. For Unity developers on US soil, the store is peppered with works still owned by Studios that can get you sued out of existence. CC0 and Apache 2.0 are the safest options in my opinion, but one still must trust the authors aren't poisoning the chain of trust with copyright violations. This is another reason why out-of-band package managers are dangerous to commercial entities. Microsoft will be in business for a long time yet... =3

palata 2y ago
> I prefer to license most works as Apache 2.0, and this ensures people can do whatever they need to get the use-case solved in whatever legal obligation they are encumbered within. I prefer copyleft licenses, because they ensure that the end user has access to my code :-). I don't do release free work on the Internet to help companies make money out of my work; I want to protect the users. The great, great thing about Linux being GPL is that Android manufacturers have to share their modified sources, which helps mainlining a lot of hardware.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  I am happy when people find a financial upside to my work... but also understand the $1m revenue limit clause Unreal engine used. Lets be honest, after a year staring at the same code base... nobody cares what happens to source-code... lol =3
  - palata 2y ago
    I take it from another angle: I don't care so much about what people do with my code. It's not that I don't want others to make money with it (not at all). It's just that as a user, I'm always happier when I get access to the sources of the product I buy. So I release my code under a copyleft licence for the sake of the other users like me. To push the idea to the extreme, imagine a world where all the open source software that was ever written was under the GPLv3? Maybe most software would be open source in one way or another (and GPLv3 gives you a way to update the software). So you could buy a smart TV, get access to its sources and to tools that would allow you to upgrade it. I think it would be pretty amazing.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      I'm not as sure as you that it would work out that way. Let's take your TV example. I bought my TV from the local store, or Amazon, or perhaps second hand from some random guy on ebay. Naturally I connect the TV to my home wifi, use the built-in Netflix app etc. Assume I'm like your aunt. I barely have the skills to plug it in, much less read the code. In this scenario is it OK that every previous owner, distributer, retailer, had the ability to add to, or change, the code in the TV? Do you think a highly skilled person, such as yourself, can audit the code to see that nothing nefarious has been added? Today I have "limited trust". I have to assume Samsung is gleaning at least some data from my TV. But I'm reasonably sure it doesn't have malware on it. In your hypothetical future, can you be as sure?
      - atq2119 2y ago
        Your optimism about how secure network-connected devices are against e.g. being added to a bot net in the status quo seems misplaced. I agree with your concern not just for the future but for today. Something like TPMs could help attest that that example TV is running the software you think it is. Of course, that would require manufacturers to care about security for their customers, which they currently don't. And the average person doesn't care enough, so the only way to change this is legislation/regulation.

palata 2y ago

> I prefer to license most works as Apache 2.0, and this ensures people can do whatever they need to get the use-case solved in whatever legal obligation they are encumbered within. I prefer copyleft licenses, because they ensure that the end user has access to my code :-). I don't do release free work on the Internet to help companies make money out of my work; I want to protect the users. The great, great thing about Linux being GPL is that Android manufacturers have to share their modified sources, which helps mainlining a lot of hardware.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
I am happy when people find a financial upside to my work... but also understand the $1m revenue limit clause Unreal engine used. Lets be honest, after a year staring at the same code base... nobody cares what happens to source-code... lol =3
- palata 2y ago
  I take it from another angle: I don't care so much about what people do with my code. It's not that I don't want others to make money with it (not at all). It's just that as a user, I'm always happier when I get access to the sources of the product I buy. So I release my code under a copyleft licence for the sake of the other users like me. To push the idea to the extreme, imagine a world where all the open source software that was ever written was under the GPLv3? Maybe most software would be open source in one way or another (and GPLv3 gives you a way to update the software). So you could buy a smart TV, get access to its sources and to tools that would allow you to upgrade it. I think it would be pretty amazing.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    I'm not as sure as you that it would work out that way. Let's take your TV example. I bought my TV from the local store, or Amazon, or perhaps second hand from some random guy on ebay. Naturally I connect the TV to my home wifi, use the built-in Netflix app etc. Assume I'm like your aunt. I barely have the skills to plug it in, much less read the code. In this scenario is it OK that every previous owner, distributer, retailer, had the ability to add to, or change, the code in the TV? Do you think a highly skilled person, such as yourself, can audit the code to see that nothing nefarious has been added? Today I have "limited trust". I have to assume Samsung is gleaning at least some data from my TV. But I'm reasonably sure it doesn't have malware on it. In your hypothetical future, can you be as sure?
    - atq2119 2y ago
      Your optimism about how secure network-connected devices are against e.g. being added to a bot net in the status quo seems misplaced. I agree with your concern not just for the future but for today. Something like TPMs could help attest that that example TV is running the software you think it is. Of course, that would require manufacturers to care about security for their customers, which they currently don't. And the average person doesn't care enough, so the only way to change this is legislation/regulation.