Look, my personal problem with GPL -- and the reason that I've moved towards more permissive licenses in my own work -- is that there are too many questions involved.
Copyright licensing is fundamentally about the conditions under which you can bring a lawsuit. Any moral or ethical pretense is just bluster -- this is about a legal right, namely, the legal right to copy. The GPL seems to say a lot of things, like "we will sue you if you don't GPL your own work" -- in other words, "we will sue you if you don't threaten to sue other people." What if I release something linked to that file with GPL, but then make it clear that I never intend to enforce the threat -- that as far as I'm concerned, I release my own work under a more permissive license, and if you use my work without GPLing yours, that's okay by me?
Can the project that I'm using sue me? Can they sue someone else who uses my project?
What is "linking" in the GPL, anyway? If my Python code says "import pyskein" does that count? Is the whole Python software license incorrect, simply because they have a "readline" module and readline is GPL and Python is not-GPL? When does something stop being "linking" and start being "systems libraries"? Should I be worried that everything I have ever written in Python is about to become GPL, and I will be legally compelled to threaten to sue others?
What is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"? Is gzipping the source code forbidden by GPL, simply because "that's technically object code"...? And suppose by fiat I decide to say "we are no longer going to make modifications to this product except by hand-modifying the compiled binary" -- is a 'finished' compiled software package no longer coverable by GPL?
What if I license some original code under GPL to you, but forget to give you the source code? You can't convey my works without the source code, but it's a license, not a contract, so you can't compel me to give you the source code either. So you can GPL something while keeping it totally proprietary. Are there other exceptions where the GPL becomes a proprietary software license?
Look, I don't want to sue you. I don't want you to sue me. That is the purpose of a free software license. I understand that the Free Software Foundation wants to stop other people from suing other people, and is trying to enforce this threat with lawsuits, but... for me that just seems like a distant problem which I don't want to have to deal with.
(I hereby release my copyright to this comment under the Creative Commons Zero waiver/license. This comment comes with NO WARRANTIES express or implied.)
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 11:05 am (UTC)Look, my personal problem with GPL -- and the reason that I've moved towards more permissive licenses in my own work -- is that there are too many questions involved.
Copyright licensing is fundamentally about the conditions under which you can bring a lawsuit. Any moral or ethical pretense is just bluster -- this is about a legal right, namely, the legal right to copy. The GPL seems to say a lot of things, like "we will sue you if you don't GPL your own work" -- in other words, "we will sue you if you don't threaten to sue other people." What if I release something linked to that file with GPL, but then make it clear that I never intend to enforce the threat -- that as far as I'm concerned, I release my own work under a more permissive license, and if you use my work without GPLing yours, that's okay by me?
Can the project that I'm using sue me? Can they sue someone else who uses my project?
What is "linking" in the GPL, anyway? If my Python code says "import pyskein" does that count? Is the whole Python software license incorrect, simply because they have a "readline" module and readline is GPL and Python is not-GPL? When does something stop being "linking" and start being "systems libraries"? Should I be worried that everything I have ever written in Python is about to become GPL, and I will be legally compelled to threaten to sue others?
What is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"? Is gzipping the source code forbidden by GPL, simply because "that's technically object code"...? And suppose by fiat I decide to say "we are no longer going to make modifications to this product except by hand-modifying the compiled binary" -- is a 'finished' compiled software package no longer coverable by GPL?
What if I license some original code under GPL to you, but forget to give you the source code? You can't convey my works without the source code, but it's a license, not a contract, so you can't compel me to give you the source code either. So you can GPL something while keeping it totally proprietary. Are there other exceptions where the GPL becomes a proprietary software license?
Look, I don't want to sue you. I don't want you to sue me. That is the purpose of a free software license. I understand that the Free Software Foundation wants to stop other people from suing other people, and is trying to enforce this threat with lawsuits, but... for me that just seems like a distant problem which I don't want to have to deal with.
(I hereby release my copyright to this comment under the Creative Commons Zero waiver/license. This comment comes with NO WARRANTIES express or implied.)
-- Drostie