> > I don't know whether you are a consequentialist but I surely am not. 
> > I am trying to apply the principle of double effect in my reasoning. 
> > If I am to be criticized for making morally wrong choices, let the
> > criticism at least concern incorrect application of that principle.  
> Even the principle of double effect goes against what you're imagining.
> The potential threat of litigation is not intended and way outweighed
> by the benefits of free software.

I don't see the threat as just an effect of using a non-public-domain
license.  One that can be disputed to be intended or not.  Rather, I
consider use of such license itself a threat, although a polite one, I
admit.

Wojtek

-- (sig_start)
website: https://koszko.org/koszko.html
fingerprint: E972 7060 E3C5 637C 8A4F  4B42 4BC5 221C 5A79 FD1A
follow me on Fediverse: https://friendica.me/profile/koszko/profile

♥ R29kIGlzIHRoZXJlIGFuZCBsb3ZlcyBtZQ== | ÷ c2luIHNlcGFyYXRlZCBtZSBmcm9tIEhpbQ==
✝ YnV0IEplc3VzIGRpZWQgdG8gc2F2ZSBtZQ== | ? U2hhbGwgSSBiZWNvbWUgSGlzIGZyaWVuZD8=
-- (sig_end)


On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 21:19:14 +0100 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, dem 03.01.2024 um 18:46 +0100 schrieb Wojtek Kosior:
> > Before getting back to the discussion, please let me ask 1 question.
> > Assume I submit a patch series that adds some useful and needed code
> > and includes a copyright notice with a promise, like this
> > 
> > ;;; Copyright © 2023 Wojtek Kosior <koszko@koszko.org>
> > ;;; Wojtek Kosior promises not to sue for violations of this file's
> > license.
> > 
> > Will this weirdness be considered minor enough to tolerate?  I made
> > sure the promise line takes below 78 chars.  
> It will be considered minor enough to be removed according to section 7
> of the GPL.
> 
> > Now, my response to Liliana.  This is becoming a viewpoint-oriented
> > discussion so if you want us to continue outside the mailing list,
> > please tell.  
> Feel free to take this off-list anytime.  I will neither insist you do
> nor you don't.
> 
> > > > 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.  
> > 
> > I disagree about my picture being incomplete.  It's perhaps just
> > deeper — if a sued party got ordered to release the source code but
> > did not, it would get punished for not complying with the court
> > order.  Somewhere deeper in the background the copyright licenses are
> > still backed by force.  I could "retain a clear conscience through a
> > lack of awareness" of this hidden threat of force… but I somehow
> > became aware of it years ago and that's how I ended here :)  
> Wishful thinking won't get you into a world where copyright law doesn't
> exist.  I agree that in a vacuum, threatening a "person" (note, that
> corporations aren't people, but pretend to be in court… anyway) with a
> fine or violence if they don't give me some source code is silly. 
> However, we live in a society where those "people" threaten the rest of
> society on a daily basis for daring to share it with others.
> 
> See Alexandre's reply for a longer explanation.
> 
> > > > 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.  
> > 
> > It seems there might be some misunderstanding resulting from us
> > applying different sets of ethical criteria.  If one is e.g. a
> > consequentialist, the overall outcome is what matters.  And the good
> > of having all derivative programs released as free software can be
> > considered to heavily outweigh the evil of making a not-very-explicit
> > legal threat.
> > 
> > I don't know whether you are a consequentialist but I surely am not. 
> > I am trying to apply the principle of double effect in my reasoning. 
> > If I am to be criticized for making morally wrong choices, let the
> > criticism at least concern incorrect application of that principle.  
> Even the principle of double effect goes against what you're imagining.
> The potential threat of litigation is not intended and way outweighed
> by the benefits of free software.  Now you can tick off that mark and
> continue with your life.
> 
> > As a side note, if I were a consequentialist, I'd probably be much
> > less of a software freedom advocate.  
> While there may be consequentialist critiques to the PDE, there are too
> many consequentialist ethics to lump them all together.  I'd personally
> even consider the PDE partially consequentialist, as it considers the
> outcomes of an action to determine morality, even if it does a very bad
> job of doing so.  Again, I believe your criticism to be born in
> misunderstandings.
> 
> > > > 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.  
> > 
> > I didn't talk about Bible anywhere.  I only talked about conscience —
> > which is shaped by many things, not just Bible — and merely mentioned
> > Catholicism.  And yet, the response I get on a public mailing list
> > mocks the Bible.  That's sad.  
> If you're that pedantic, I didn't specifically talk about the Bible
> either.  Now, I know you can be Catholic without having read the book
> ('t even makes it easier), but I kindly ask you not to justify your
> views on copyright with it, as few of us are certified priests who can
> correct you if you have been led astray in your faith.  Cool?  Cool.
> 
> > If you want, I'll happily take part in a discussion about Bible's
> > value. We can talk about the cultural context, the symbolism,
> > different levels of meaning of some texts, their history and that the
> > Scripture is infallible with respect to theological, not historical
> > truths — contrary to what some expect.  
> Now, I'm not here to debate theological "truths", but I can roll 3d20
> on Gods and Cults if you insist.
> 
> > > 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 :)  
> > 
> > If we consider faith just a set of dogmas, I agree.  But if we
> > consider it a relation or journey — why not?  Not everything can be
> > dogmatized — there's a lot of place for personal experience and
> > reflections.  And mine have led me to my views on copyright ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  
> Yeah, I'll need an Orientation skill check real quick.
> 
> > > > 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.  
> > 
> > Perhaps while we are engaging in this viewpoint-oriented discussion,
> > we can at least implement some temporary solution to the initial
> > issue? :)  
> Scroll back to the top.
> 
> > > > 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 [...]  
> > 
> > Thanks for trying to help here.  Sorry to say, the suggestions you
> > make don't remove what I called the "threat".
> >   
> > > 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.  
> > 
> > Well, there's no incentive for me to argue for a pacifist label.  
> You should go back and think about that PDE you were mentioning
> earlier.
> 
> > To make things clear — promise not to sue has been found by at least
> > one court to be equivalent to a license.  So GPL with a promise
> > should have similar legal effect to a public domain waiver, all while
> > hopefully making it easier to mix with others' GPL'd code when need
> > arises.  That's the entire point of it.  
> Assuming I have said anything to the contrary, I will now stand
> corrected.  Anyhow, you are probably better served with an actual
> license that has been tried in more than one court, but if you want to
> ask Jesus for legal advice instead, that's fine by me.
> 
> > > > > 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?)  
> > 
> > I'm male hence the lack of period.  
> I would not have guessed until you pointed that out to me.
> 
> > Well, during my school years there was a meme in Poland about period
> > at the end of a message being a "period of hate".  I simply retained
> > a habit of omitting the last period.  I guess I can as well include
> > it when writing english since few will get the joke anyway…  
> I… am not sure how this applies in the context of email, and you anyhow
> leave a "proper" greeting below, so it doesn't make sense to drop the
> period in that sentence.  It just makes people assume you wrote the
> greeting first and then
> 
> Cheers