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

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, dem 27.12.2023 um 10:22 +0100 schrieb Wojtek Kosior:
> Hi
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> I'll try to explain the problem.  Software licenses, if enforced, are
> enforced through legal means.  You sue the proprietors to have them
> respect the GPL or (significantly more often) the mere possibility of
> being easly defeated in court scares proprietors away from violating
> the GPL.  In the latter case it's not a lawsuit but a (more or less
> explicit) threat of a lawsuit.
> 
> These legal means can be considered brutal.  Even if I did something
> bad to someone (which I'm trying not to), I wouldn't like them to
> make efforts to have me imprisoned or fined.  Similarly, I wish not
> to have others imprisoned/fined but rather pursue justice via as
> peaceful means as possible.
> 
> Now, one could argue that I could just use a copyleft license and
> then not sue — that's what RMS said when we met in 2021.  But that's
> where the notion of threat comes to the foreground.  Just as I
> consider license lawsuits not to be in line with my conscience, I
> consider lawsuit threats (even conceales ones) not to be in line
> either.  And non-public-domain licenses fall in this category, at
> least as long as licensing is understood in terms of legal systems.
I think you are (willingly or otherwise) drawing an incomplete picture
here.  When the FSF sues, rather than seek for damages, they seek
publication of software, which is exactly what the GPL already tells
you to do.

> Whenever I publish some code under CC0, others could of course remove
> the CC0 license notices, put different license in place and legally
> redistribute that code — thus making it seem as if I were using a
> non-public-domain license in the first place.  I'm not doing anything
> about it because there's little I could do.  But if I were to somehow
> authorize or aid in something like this, I object.  Which is what
> we're discussing in this thread.
This appears to be a case of wanting your cake and eating it as well. 
By declaring some piece of software public domain you already aid in
its proprietary redistribution.  You simply retain a clear conscience
through a lack of awareness. 

> RMS called my approach "pacifism" and he is probably right.  Even
> most Catholics like myself would disagree with me — many make use
> copyright, after all.  But my own conscience is telling me not to do
> certain things that seem harmful and I'm trying to obey it.
The nice thing about holy scripture is that you can justify just about
anything with it, especially if you are liberal in your interpretation.
It gets even easier with classical reasoning: Just pick two
contradicting sentences (or even a self-contradicting one), and it
logically entails every sentence, even those that large language models
come up with.

Now pardon my agnosticism, but even you yourself remark that people
sharing your faith have different opinions on copyright.  I thus highly
doubt that it ought to have a big influence over yours :)

> I hope my issue is clarified, I am sorry it hasn't been so from the
> beginning.  It felt that including an explanation like the above one
> with the previous email would add up to an essay inappropriately long
> for this mailing list, I hope you agree.
I do agree on the inappropriate size, but at the same time I disagree
on the clarification bit, in that your issue hasn't yet been distilled
to its purest form.  There instead appear to be some misconceptions
clouding your mind making it so that we (and perhaps even you yourself)
have to come up with a consistent belief about copyright in the first
place.

> I'll add that in the past I tried using the GPL while making it not
> look like a threat by adding a "promise not to sue" below the
> notice.  I have since switched to CC0 because it's less ambigious
> (promises could have legally unexpected/untested outcomes) and easier
> to use.  I could once again use such promise approach for some code
> if it is more welcome — it'd still require a "statement" to be
> accepted by the maintainers, tho.  Do you think it is more "possible"
> this way?
I think the threat of legal dispute can much more easily be avoided by
considering what users might reasonably be wanting to do with your
software and aiding them in doing so.  See [1] for an example.  I
anticipate that folks would want to improve my software or use it to
write games and thus provide hints as to what terms apply in which
condition.

Other than that, the GPL version three (or later) allows you to make
more or less arbitrary exceptions (such as the LGPL) to your license,
as per section 7.  Thus, you could reasonably create a "GPL, but if you
do A, B, or C, it is the LGPL/Expat License/what have you".  Promising
not to sue is not even good pacifism anyway.  It's like advocating for
worker's rights without even holding a sign in the streets.

Back to the context of software licensing, a user of your software
would anyhow have to consider, whether
a) their use of your software falls within any granted permissions,
or
b) you could grant them an exception otherwise.
On the principle of reciprocity, I don't think you need to be
particularly considerate of those who show no consideration.  You can
(and probably should) however inform the other party before going to
court, to give the other party an opportunity to comply without being
coerced by court and to decide whether it's a fight worth fighting.

> > 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.
> 
> I agree that copyleft can be a powerful weapon against proprietors. 
> My issue is definitely about something else than it being ineffective
Sadly, the message cuts off here.  (Or perhaps you are just missing a
sentence-ending period?)

Cheers


[1] 
https://gitlab.com/lilyp/tsukundere/-/blob/0.4.3/README.org?ref_type=tags&plain=1#L82