Chase Venters writes:
<< The Death of a Software License might be more plausible if some of the most important enterprise free software projects were not about to move to GPLv3 the day it comes out. This includes Samba and likely the whole of the GNU underpinnings that are often forgotten but quite vital to a complete GNU/Linux system. >>
He's right. I maintain a piece of GPLed free software which is installed on more than 99.95% of Linux boxes (well, actually Debian boxes, but I don't expect the result will be much different for other distributions, they just don't publish figures). The software I write is used by most Linux users, and regularly. Why am I going to move? Several reasons:
1. I believe that it will benefit the people who use the software. By use, I mean "run", "invoke". The people that normally get dismissed with the phrase "end users" as if they are the bottom end of some food chain.
2. I believe that the version 3 of the GPL will work to prevent some things which I think it's worthwhile to prevent. I believe that all people who receive a copy of the software I write should have the right to use it, hack on it, modify - or fix - it, and give or sell the modified version. The GPL (v2) was intended to provide such freedoms to all users. It turns out that there may be ways for people to comply with the letter of the terms of the GPLv2 while denying the exercise of these important rights to users of the software. This is something that GPLv3 fixes, and I am happy to see such loopholes plugged. I adopted the GPL because I believe it brings about social good. The same motivation leads me to adopt version 3.
3. Were I to undergo a personality change and want to license further work under a restrictive license, everybody is free to take the existing code and fork it. I think that is beneficial. Do I think that project forks are beneficial? Usually not. But the _right_ to fork is very important.
You might argue that I am not in fact a "developer" as you term it. Perhaps by "developer" you really mean intermediaries that do other important things like integration of the thousands of free software packages so that they all work well together and, importantly, who do all the integration and release testing. Those guys also care a lot about licenses, because copyright licenses determine whether or not they can include a piece of software in their product (distribution, device, whatever). Maybe you think their preference could be for more permissive licensing, allowing them more flexibility with regard to what rights they pass on. Perhaps you are right, in the case of some of those guys.
Do I believe that the preferences of the intermediaries, the distributors, the device manufacturers and so forth morally outweigh the preferences of the end users of the devices? No, I don't, and that is the very nub of the issue.
The right to fix stuff is valuable to end users. The right to ask a third party (not the manufacturer) to fix stuff is just as important, too - because sometimes Grandma can't write C++. I choose to weigh those preferences with a greater weight than the preferences of device manufacturers, distributors, etc.
Isn't "permissive licensing" just a euphemism for allowing people to deny to others those rights I just said I thought were important?
Forgot your password?
New user?
<< The Death of a Software License might be more plausible if some of the most important enterprise free software projects were not about to move to GPLv3 the day it comes out. This includes Samba and likely the whole of the GNU underpinnings that are often forgotten but quite vital to a complete GNU/Linux system. >>
He's right. I maintain a piece of GPLed free software which is installed on more than 99.95% of Linux boxes (well, actually Debian boxes, but I don't expect the result will be much different for other distributions, they just don't publish figures). The software I write is used by most Linux users, and regularly. Why am I going to move? Several reasons:
1. I believe that it will benefit the people who use the software. By use, I mean "run", "invoke". The people that normally get dismissed with the phrase "end users" as if they are the bottom end of some food chain.
2. I believe that the version 3 of the GPL will work to prevent some things which I think it's worthwhile to prevent. I believe that all people who receive a copy of the software I write should have the right to use it, hack on it, modify - or fix - it, and give or sell the modified version. The GPL (v2) was intended to provide such freedoms to all users. It turns out that there may be ways for people to comply with the letter of the terms of the GPLv2 while denying the exercise of these important rights to users of the software. This is something that GPLv3 fixes, and I am happy to see such loopholes plugged. I adopted the GPL because I believe it brings about social good. The same motivation leads me to adopt version 3.
3. Were I to undergo a personality change and want to license further work under a restrictive license, everybody is free to take the existing code and fork it. I think that is beneficial. Do I think that project forks are beneficial? Usually not. But the _right_ to fork is very important.
You might argue that I am not in fact a "developer" as you term it. Perhaps by "developer" you really mean intermediaries that do other important things like integration of the thousands of free software packages so that they all work well together and, importantly, who do all the integration and release testing. Those guys also care a lot about licenses, because copyright licenses determine whether or not they can include a piece of software in their product (distribution, device, whatever). Maybe you think their preference could be for more permissive licensing, allowing them more flexibility with regard to what rights they pass on. Perhaps you are right, in the case of some of those guys.
Do I believe that the preferences of the intermediaries, the distributors, the device manufacturers and so forth morally outweigh the preferences of the end users of the devices? No, I don't, and that is the very nub of the issue.
The right to fix stuff is valuable to end users. The right to ask a third party (not the manufacturer) to fix stuff is just as important, too - because sometimes Grandma can't write C++. I choose to weigh those preferences with a greater weight than the preferences of device manufacturers, distributors, etc.
Isn't "permissive licensing" just a euphemism for allowing people to deny to others those rights I just said I thought were important?