3 ms·

I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I unde

I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I understand it entirely. I understand copyleft, but the document is written for lawyers and I am not one. I can't expect users to read it either, much less understand it. I use the BSD licenses because they are simple and clear. If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles.

jimktrains2 13y ago
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html it isn't that bad to get through. There are also more than enough analysis of it on the web from reputable sources (I'm looking for good links...). If you understand copyleft, then you know what you're giving up by not using a copyleft, license. Do you not care about what you gain from the copyleft or don't want what you gain?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  I care about what I lose because of copylefting software. I want software to suck less, and if that occasionally means letting someone be a free-rider on my stuff, let it be. At the same time, the existence of the GPL doesn't preclude people from free-riding either. Look at the embedded toolchains that are little more than GCC with a tiny proprietary wrapper, or the many many companies that use GPLed code, and have internal patches that never see light outside of the company. Restrictive licenses like the GPL are not all sunshine and roses.
- eliteraspberrie 13y ago
  I think most people outside of technology wouldn't easily understand copyleft, and a day might come when I depend on those people. So it's a trade-off between my rights, users' rights, and my peace of mind. The rights I give up, by choosing BSD rather than GPL, I don't think I could enforce without losing my peace of mind.
chimeracoder 13y ago
> If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles. The case would be over quickly, but you may not be happy with the result. If you are not well-trained in copyright law (specifically as it applies to software), you are not going to be able to enforce the BSD license any better than you will be able to enforce the GPL, without a lawyer. There are just so many other ways that a well-funded legal team can give you the run-around.
- nzp 13y ago
  The whole point of BSD-style licenses is that there is hardly anything to enforce at all. With such a license you are simply stating that you allow the receiver to do whatever they want with it. This statement is just necessary because by default under the copyright law no rights (with some exceptions such as fair use etc., it depends on jurisdiction) are granted to entities receiving the work.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    Well, yes, obviously it's "easier" to litigate when you give yourself less legal standing to file suit, but that's a rather meaningless comparison. By that logic CC0, is the easiest to litigate, because you've given up all your rights as the license holder. That only makes sense if you place literally zero value on the rights that the license provides. It's only relevant to compare how easily enforceable two licenses are when the rights they provide are comparable (e.g., GPL and MPL, or 3-clause BSD and MIT). The whole point of choosing the GPL over BSD/MIT is choosing a copyleft license. If all you care about is ensuring that the recipient is legally granted the rights provided by the BSD/MIT license, then the question of how "easy" it is for the license holder to litigate isn't relevant. OP's argument was that it would be too much mental effort to enforce the GPL, though that's not really an argument for not choosing the GPL, because simply holding the license doesn't mean he has to enforce it. If OP actually doesn't want the copyleft provisions, then obviously he shouldn't choose the GPL. But if that's something that he does care about, there's not really any downside to selecting the GPL, and no upside to selecting a non-copyleft license.

jimktrains2 13y ago

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html it isn't that bad to get through. There are also more than enough analysis of it on the web from reputable sources (I'm looking for good links...). If you understand copyleft, then you know what you're giving up by not using a copyleft, license. Do you not care about what you gain from the copyleft or don't want what you gain?

Sanddancer 13y ago
I care about what I lose because of copylefting software. I want software to suck less, and if that occasionally means letting someone be a free-rider on my stuff, let it be. At the same time, the existence of the GPL doesn't preclude people from free-riding either. Look at the embedded toolchains that are little more than GCC with a tiny proprietary wrapper, or the many many companies that use GPLed code, and have internal patches that never see light outside of the company. Restrictive licenses like the GPL are not all sunshine and roses.
eliteraspberrie 13y ago
I think most people outside of technology wouldn't easily understand copyleft, and a day might come when I depend on those people. So it's a trade-off between my rights, users' rights, and my peace of mind. The rights I give up, by choosing BSD rather than GPL, I don't think I could enforce without losing my peace of mind.

chimeracoder 13y ago

> If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles. The case would be over quickly, but you may not be happy with the result. If you are not well-trained in copyright law (specifically as it applies to software), you are not going to be able to enforce the BSD license any better than you will be able to enforce the GPL, without a lawyer. There are just so many other ways that a well-funded legal team can give you the run-around.

nzp 13y ago
The whole point of BSD-style licenses is that there is hardly anything to enforce at all. With such a license you are simply stating that you allow the receiver to do whatever they want with it. This statement is just necessary because by default under the copyright law no rights (with some exceptions such as fair use etc., it depends on jurisdiction) are granted to entities receiving the work.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  Well, yes, obviously it's "easier" to litigate when you give yourself less legal standing to file suit, but that's a rather meaningless comparison. By that logic CC0, is the easiest to litigate, because you've given up all your rights as the license holder. That only makes sense if you place literally zero value on the rights that the license provides. It's only relevant to compare how easily enforceable two licenses are when the rights they provide are comparable (e.g., GPL and MPL, or 3-clause BSD and MIT). The whole point of choosing the GPL over BSD/MIT is choosing a copyleft license. If all you care about is ensuring that the recipient is legally granted the rights provided by the BSD/MIT license, then the question of how "easy" it is for the license holder to litigate isn't relevant. OP's argument was that it would be too much mental effort to enforce the GPL, though that's not really an argument for not choosing the GPL, because simply holding the license doesn't mean he has to enforce it. If OP actually doesn't want the copyleft provisions, then obviously he shouldn't choose the GPL. But if that's something that he does care about, there's not really any downside to selecting the GPL, and no upside to selecting a non-copyleft license.