Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mark,

Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> skribis:

> (It looks like your message never made it to the list, so quoting a bit
> more extensively to make sure everything you wrote is also in this
> message.)

Oh, weird.

> On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:28 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> skribis:
>> > I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise
>> > without
>> > having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example
>> > could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute
>> > software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users'
>> > freedoms cannot be strip off."?
>> 
>> I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think
>> it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here.
>> 
>> Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet
>> we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> Agreed. But I think I didn't explain very well what my concrete
> suggestion was. So this is what I am actually suggesting:
>
> Replace this text:
>
>    Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the
>    advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU
>    Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure
>    that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software.
>
>    With this:
>
>    The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable
>    developers to actively defend users' Freedom. Which includes
>    distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to
>    ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off.

OK.  (with s/Which/This/)

>    This leaves off when/how we precisely define these policies (when not
>    to use copyleft, or LGPL or some exception, and when to require
>    copyright assignment/bundling or not). But does make clear that the
>    first priority is defending user freedom.

I see, especially in light of your other comments about copyright
holders.

It seems to me that the wording you propose somewhat softens the
preference for copyleft, though.  How about:

  The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers
  to actively defend user freedom.  These policies include distributing
  GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’
  freedoms cannot be stripped off, unless the GNU Project deems that a
  different choice furthers the advancement of user freedom.

Anyway, I guess we’re really nitpicking at this point, overall we’re
saying the same thing!

>> I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the
>> FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”.  The
>> motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF
>> “to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations.
>
> Right, but the point is to be able to enforce defending user freedoms
> effectively. And leaving copyrights with corporations instead of the
> actual developers or the FSF makes it so we cannot effectively do that.

Yes.

>> Regarding the pros and cons of copyright assignment, we could discuss at
>> length.  :-)  However, regardless of what we think of copyright
>> assignment, I believe the social contract should be positioned at a
>> higher level.  IOW, I view copyright assignment as a policy issue, and
>> not as a defining principle.  (Note that currently copyright assignment
>> is not mandated for new packages, and in practice only a fraction of GNU
>> packages require it.)
>
> I believe using a copyleft license (and which one), and having a
> strategy to effectively use it to defend user freedom are both policy
> issues. The defining principle is that we favor policies (using
> copyleft licensing) and strategies (keep copyright with the active
> developer/FSF that will enforce copyleft) that maximize user freedom.

Right, that clarifies to me the purpose of the rewording above.

Thank you!

Ludo’.