Re: Mixing GPL and non-copyleft code in source files

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Samstag, dem 23.12.2023 um 19:19 +0100 schrieb Wojtek Kosior via
Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.:
> > I would offer a chronological list of my downloadable contributions
> > to Guix and place the following wording on top of the page:
> > 
> > "I disagree with the licensing model embraced by GNU Guix and
> > hereby release my contributions there under the CC-0 license. For
> > convenience, you can also use the patches below."
> 
> Does this wording sound a bit too harsh on Guix or is it just my
> impression?  Free software hackers do have my respect, even if their
> licensing ethics is slightly different than mine.
Well, it is necessarily harsh on any entity that might stand there in
lieu of GNU Guix, because, at the end of the day, the fact remains that
you want to contribute some work to a project under a different
license.  Within the context of this thread it also seems as though
this is not simply copying the code and license from elsewhere, but
actually going out of your way to make a conflict.

The FSF on the other hand recommends to contribute to projects under
their preferred license, unless there are serious problems with doing
so (such as the license firstly requiring you to use an escape hatch to
actually make it free).

> > The hurdle is that as a Guix maintainer, I would not accept your
> > dual-licensing statements into my project.
> 
> It's more or less the same hurdle as with the HR people.  When
> someone is an idealist — or just "weird" — they often won't give even
> a *chance* to *try* to prove being useful or good at sth.
> 
> Us, free software folks, are notoriously marginalized and pushed into
> depression in these and other situation — many of you surely
> experienced it.  And it's extra hurtful when even offers of *unpaid*
> help get rejected (whoever offered to install a libre operating
> system on a friend's device, knows this).
> 
> Now, should such marginalization be repeated even within the freesw
> circles?  If it is harmful to block ppl from participating in the
> society using libre software (as universities, tax offices, etc. are
> doing) — and one disapproves it — then one will make efforts to avoid
> similar harmful exclusions in one's own micro-society, right?
> 
> Sadly, in the end those more idealistic risk more marginalization and
> therefore greater depression — all while probably caring the most…
Define harmful exclusion.  Publishing some source code under the GPL v3
(or later) does not preclude you as the sole author from also
publishing it under the CC-0.  It does defeat the purpose of the GPL if
you, however, because whoever wants to make a proprietary spin-off will
simply take the CC-0, since whereas the GPL gives you access to all the
changes when they redistribute it, the CC-0 gives you bupkis.

As for the other half of the argument, this is literally how licenses
work: they define what is allowed under what conditions.  Now there
might be an argument to be had that "everything goes" results in the
greatest overall freedom, but this claim has not been shown to hold in
any context it was proposed.

Cheers