3 ms·

I see it rather the other way around. Copyleft licenses primarily defend individual liberty by guaranteeing the right of downstream users to modify software and

I see it rather the other way around. Copyleft licenses primarily defend individual liberty by guaranteeing the right of downstream users to modify software and distribute the modified versions, which is the natural state of things (absent state intervention, individuals can modify any software in their possession, and distribute it if they wish). The MIT/BSD licenses are freer in one sense: downstream users may sue other downstream users who use their modifications without a license. I can take a piece of MIT-licensed software, make changes to it, and then if someone uses my changes without a license from me, I can sue them for copyright infringement. The GPL takes away that freedom to restrict downstream users. Considering that the right the MIT/BSD license let you retain amounts to using the machinery of the state to restrict other people's freedom to use and modify software, I don't see how this is freer in the libertarian sense. At least, not unless you believe "intellectual property" is literally natural property, rather than a fiction created by the state. Now, the anti-IP libertarian position would be in favor of neither the MIT/BSD nor the GPL approach, but simply in favor of abolishing copyright entirely. Then you would inherently have the right to modify and distribute any software in your possession, and wouldn't need a copyleft license to ensure you retain that right. However, so long as copyright exists, the GPL seems like a pragmatic approach to mitigate its damage.

mpyne 13y ago
Copyright is a property right though, and I was under the real impression that if there was any right libertarians did protect, it was property. Which would again make MIT/BSD-style licenses as a libertarian license. But either way, keep in mind that the lawsuit you posit can only happen if the changes you speak of are not themselves licensed under a FOSS license. With GPL this is effectively impossible; you can't link GPL code with proprietary code except with certain limited restrictions (or maybe it was can't distribute, but either way no downstream should be affected by your proprietary changes). In this case GPL restricts your individual freedom even to write proprietary modifications and use them for the good of the whole commons. Because of the "individual freedom" nature of MIT/BSD licenses, you can legally link BSD and proprietary code. If that ends up being a problem for someone else, well, so be it.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Many libertarians do not believe copyright is a form of property. Rather, they believe copyrights and patents are a form of state-granted temporary monopoly. The state grants people temporary monopolies as a sort of social engineering, in order to incentivize certain kinds of intellectual activity that the state considers worth incentivizing ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts", as the U.S. Constitution says). Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies. One essay on the subject: http://www.freenation.org/a/f31l1.html http://www.freenation.org/a/f31l1.html
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies. These libertarians would still see GPL as a non-libertarian license then. GPL, like other "copyleft" licenses, depends upon strong copyright law to work at all. GPL without copyright is just public domain, and not GPL at all. BSD/MIT-style licenses, on the other hand, barely use copyright at all. Most of the verbiage is to disclaim warranty and ensure the license itself remains with the source, the only thing mentioned about copyright itself is a simple grant that modifications may be made.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Yes, but the main thing the GPL does with copyright is to attempt to defang the exercise of the copyright monopoly itself, by preventing you from yourself using copyright law to remove downstream users' reuse/modification/distribution rights. It's not an ideal solution, but it's a pragmatic attempt to turn copyright law against itself. The BSD/MIT licenses, by contrast, do nothing to hamper those who would exercise such a a monopoly (i.e. the authors of proprietary software), and in fact seem often explicitly chosen in order to enable them.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Right. I'm sorry, I had missed that paragraph in one of your earlier comments as GPL being a way to make copyright not suck. I would still argue that GPL's intended effect (that source remain open and available for inspection) is achievable only with copyright, while never achievable with BSD/MIT (which can always be taken proprietary again, even without copyright law). So in that guise GPL (w/ copyright) is more concerned with society overall (i.e. having access to source), even to the exclusion of some individual freedoms. Additionally these restrictions cannot be enforced without some version of an IP regime which makes it even more non-libertarian.

mpyne 13y ago

Copyright is a property right though, and I was under the real impression that if there was any right libertarians did protect, it was property. Which would again make MIT/BSD-style licenses as a libertarian license. But either way, keep in mind that the lawsuit you posit can only happen if the changes you speak of are not themselves licensed under a FOSS license. With GPL this is effectively impossible; you can't link GPL code with proprietary code except with certain limited restrictions (or maybe it was can't distribute, but either way no downstream should be affected by your proprietary changes). In this case GPL restricts your individual freedom even to write proprietary modifications and use them for the good of the whole commons. Because of the "individual freedom" nature of MIT/BSD licenses, you can legally link BSD and proprietary code. If that ends up being a problem for someone else, well, so be it.

_delirium 13y ago
Many libertarians do not believe copyright is a form of property. Rather, they believe copyrights and patents are a form of state-granted temporary monopoly. The state grants people temporary monopolies as a sort of social engineering, in order to incentivize certain kinds of intellectual activity that the state considers worth incentivizing ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts", as the U.S. Constitution says). Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies. One essay on the subject: http://www.freenation.org/a/f31l1.html http://www.freenation.org/a/f31l1.html
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies. These libertarians would still see GPL as a non-libertarian license then. GPL, like other "copyleft" licenses, depends upon strong copyright law to work at all. GPL without copyright is just public domain, and not GPL at all. BSD/MIT-style licenses, on the other hand, barely use copyright at all. Most of the verbiage is to disclaim warranty and ensure the license itself remains with the source, the only thing mentioned about copyright itself is a simple grant that modifications may be made.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Yes, but the main thing the GPL does with copyright is to attempt to defang the exercise of the copyright monopoly itself, by preventing you from yourself using copyright law to remove downstream users' reuse/modification/distribution rights. It's not an ideal solution, but it's a pragmatic attempt to turn copyright law against itself. The BSD/MIT licenses, by contrast, do nothing to hamper those who would exercise such a a monopoly (i.e. the authors of proprietary software), and in fact seem often explicitly chosen in order to enable them.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Right. I'm sorry, I had missed that paragraph in one of your earlier comments as GPL being a way to make copyright not suck. I would still argue that GPL's intended effect (that source remain open and available for inspection) is achievable only with copyright, while never achievable with BSD/MIT (which can always be taken proprietary again, even without copyright law). So in that guise GPL (w/ copyright) is more concerned with society overall (i.e. having access to source), even to the exclusion of some individual freedoms. Additionally these restrictions cannot be enforced without some version of an IP regime which makes it even more non-libertarian.