| |||||||||||||
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-nextFOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-nextPosted Feb 14, 2013 20:52 UTC (Thu) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)In reply to: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next by josh Parent article: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next
Point taken. It is certainly true that this provision is distinct from the main goal of copyleft-next.
But I do like the underlying idea behind this provision. It corrects what I consider to be an error in all previous copyleft licenses, an error that has had very troubling ethical consequences. You're right that another way to correct it is to encourage non-copyright-assignment/non-CLA copyleft project legal governance. However, I don't want this license to be tainted by that practice the way earlier/existing copyleft licenses have been. I feel quite strongly about this; you're not wrong to describe this provision as 'opinionated' in nature.
(Log in to post comments)
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next Posted Feb 14, 2013 21:45 UTC (Thu) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
I don't object to the principle you've suggested here, though I also don't see anything wrong with projects that choose to allow that practice. (I see nothing wrong with the "share your code or pay us" licensing model, and I certainly wouldn't consider it an error in all previous copyleft licenses.) However, I'd much rather have seen that as an optional addition to a license, rather than a required part of an otherwise much simpler license; as long as this provision remains in copyleft-next, I'll stick with the GPL. Given that you started this project partly in response to the many novel and controversial licensing provisions in GPLv3, such as the anti-DRM clause, it seems suboptimal to introduce your own novel and controversial licensing provisions.
The main reason I don't consider this an error in previous copyleft licenses, and the reason I brought up assignments/CLAs: the copyleft licenses themselves have no inherent asymmetry. If you write a project yourself, and hold all the copyrights, I see absolutely nothing wrong with choosing a dual-licensing model, including one that provides paid non-copyleft licenses. If you accept contributions, then unless those contributors sign an assignment or CLA, you can no longer use that dual-licensing model without the agreement of those contributors. If you want to maintain that dual-licensing model while taking third-party contributions, you have to introduce an assignment or CLA, and *that* introduces the asymmetry; the copyleft license doesn't.
I see no asymmetry here, and thus I see no bug in existing copyleft licenses here.
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next Posted Feb 18, 2013 14:23 UTC (Mon) by ian00 (guest, #55476) [Link]
"*that* introduces the asymmetry." And this excludes *that* asymmetry...
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next Posted Feb 18, 2013 14:18 UTC (Mon) by ian00 (guest, #55476) [Link]
I completely agree with you on adding this provision and why.
Ethical consequences ... Posted Feb 21, 2013 16:21 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
But if I understand this aright, your "fix" has an equally troubling ethical consequence.
Let's say I've spent loads of time and money developing my product. I want to PROTECT my customers, like Qt/KDE did. It sounds like I can't use your licence to do it. Oooppsss.
Personally, I have no problem with people trying to monetise and sell their software. But as a customer I don't want to be trapped with outdated software and no source when technology moves on, and I think developers have a duty to their customers. Pity I can't use your licence to achieve that :-(
Cheers,
Ethical consequences ... Posted Feb 21, 2013 16:32 UTC (Thu) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]
I don't understand. To make this simpler let's forget copyleft-next and suppose the license is the GPL. What is there in pure GPL that prevents you from "PROTECTING" your customers? I don't even know what you mean by "PROTECTING". It seems to be "making sure customers have up-to-date software and source code". What in the GPL prevents you from doing that?
Ethical consequences ... Posted Feb 21, 2013 17:01 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
So you ignore the point I'm trying to make!
The GPL promptly makes all my hard work in writing the software valueless (certainly in terms of being able to extract an income stream). You're imposing your "software wants to be free" ethic on me, and not respecting my "the labourer is worthy of his hire" ethic.
In my scenario *I* wrote the software, I want to *sell* the software, and I want to make sure that if I fall under a bus my customers won't be left up s**t creek.
Okay, that obviously means I don't buy in to *hard* copyleft, but your attitude is in the "GPL or die" camp. And you're using copyleft to enforce stuff that is outside the realm of copyright, namely you are (in practice) forrbidding copyright licencing agreements. That's exactly the sort of thing that alienates a lot of copyleft-friendly people who your copyleft-next is allegedly aimed at.
Just as the anti-tivoisation clauses in GPL3 alienated a lot people who saw them as stepping outside the realm of copyright and into the realm of enforcing idealism, so this clause to me smacks of exactly the same.
At the end of the day, if I am sole copyright holder (or have a licence from contributors that says I can) and distribute both proprietary and GPL versions, then those other contributors know up front what they're letting themselves in for. And it's a *contract* matter, not a *copyright* matter.
Equally to the point, I (should) know exactly what I as the copyright holder am letting myself in for. Actually, I have seen at first hand what happens when a company tries to convert their product into a dual-licence proprietary/GPL state. Firstly, they would never have touched your licence in a month of sundays. And secondly, it went rather tits-up because they didn't actually understand what they were getting themselves into. But even given that mess, they have a community. If you want to investigate, google "OpenQM". And people, if you find stuff you don't like, PLEASE don't dive in - they are nice people, really!
Cheers,
Ethical consequences ... Posted Feb 21, 2013 17:36 UTC (Thu) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]
> The GPL promptly makes all my hard work in writing the software
> valueless (certainly in terms of being able to extract an income > stream). You're imposing your "software wants to be free" ethic on > me, and not respecting my "the labourer is worthy of his hire" > ethic.
I believe you may be confusing "free as in freedom" with "free as in
> Okay, that obviously means I don't buy in to *hard* copyleft, but
No.
> And you're using copyleft
No, I'm essentially saying 'if you use a strong copyleft license for
> At the end of the day, if I am sole copyright holder (or have a
It's not the contributors I'm concerned about here, primarily, though
> Actually, I have seen at first hand what happens when a company
That's exactly the effect I wish to achieve.
|
|||||||||||||