Mixing GPL and non-copyleft code in source files

Mixing GPL and non-copyleft code in source files

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1515 bytes --]

Hi

I have some changes in my personal Guix fork that I'd like to
contribute.  I'd like the lines of code I authored to be dual-licensed
under GPL-3.0-or-later and CC0-1.0.  This is purely for personal
reasons (as having a mere few dozens of lines in a project under CC0
causes no practical change to the project).

How can I indicate such licensing?  In one patch I sent 5 months ago (a
still unreviewed one, unfortunately) I added a line like

    ;;; Copyright © 2023 Wojtek Kosior <my-contribution-is-licensed-cc0@koszko.org>

while keeping the rest of the license notice intact.  Yup, this happens
to be an existing email address that also conveys a message.  However,
I am worried this might be too ambigious.

Are there better ways?  How about introducing an SPDX license
identifier + explaining the licensing situation in the commit message?

Btw, is there anything that from technical side should be corrected in
the linked patch?  I mean, besides my failure to use `list` with gexps
for the `arguments` field (I already realized that shortcoming myself)

Wojtek

[1] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64869

-- (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)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

Hi Wojtek,

On Fri, Dec 22 2023, Wojtek Kosior via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." wrote:

> I'd like the lines of code I authored to be dual-licensed under
> GPL-3.0-or-later and CC0-1.0.  This is purely for personal reasons (as
> having a mere few dozens of lines in a project under CC0 causes no
> practical change to the project).

As someone who grew up under Microshaft's dominance of the PC market,
I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. Someone who choses the
GPL for a project is probably opposed to CC-0 for that project.

Could you publish your diffs elsewhere with an appropriate note that
they are also available under CC-0 from there?

Kind regards
Felix

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2341 bytes --]

Thanks for the response

> Could you publish your diffs elsewhere with an appropriate note that
> they are also available under CC-0 from there?

Well, that's more or less what I am already doing with a public git
repo for my fork — except I'm not sure how an "appropriate note" would
look like.  Where do you imagine it?  In a commit message?  Elsewhere?

> > I'd like the lines of code I authored to be dual-licensed under
> > GPL-3.0-or-later and CC0-1.0.  This is purely for personal reasons (as
> > having a mere few dozens of lines in a project under CC0 causes no
> > practical change to the project).  
> 
> As someone who grew up under Microshaft's dominance of the PC market,
> I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. Someone who choses the
> GPL for a project is probably opposed to CC-0 for that project.

I see.  I believe we have similar experiences and similar moral rating
of Microsoft's actions — and just different attitude to making use of
legal force :)

"no practical change" was meant to mean that it would still be
impossible to integrate said project into a proprietary product.  One
would need to obtain a non-copyleft license from other ~1071
contributors.  Or slightly fewer but still…

Best
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 Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:00:32 -0800 Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> wrote:

> > I'd like the lines of code I authored to be dual-licensed under
> > GPL-3.0-or-later and CC0-1.0.  This is purely for personal reasons (as
> > having a mere few dozens of lines in a project under CC0 causes no
> > practical change to the project).  
> 
> As someone who grew up under Microshaft's dominance of the PC market,
> I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. Someone who choses the
> GPL for a project is probably opposed to CC-0 for that project.
> 
> Could you publish your diffs elsewhere with an appropriate note that
> they are also available under CC-0 from there?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

Hi Wojtek,

On Fri, Dec 22 2023, Wojtek Kosior wrote:

> I'm not sure how an "appropriate note" would look like.  Where do you
> imagine it?

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."

The hurdle is that as a Guix maintainer, I would not accept your
dual-licensing statements into my project.

> I believe we have ... different attitude to making use of legal force

You are probably right. I'm a complete pushover, especially in the
wintertime.

Kind regards
Felix

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3204 bytes --]

> 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.

> 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…


Since we're having this discussion just before holiday, let me finish
with wishes of Merry Christmas.  To everyone on this mailing list,
regardless of how this discussion ends for us.  I'll take this time
as an opportunity for pray for all the Guixers to be saints o:)

Best
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 Fri, 22 Dec 2023 14:41:17 -0800 Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> wrote:

> Hi Wojtek,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 22 2023, Wojtek Kosior wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure how an "appropriate note" would look like.  Where do you
> > imagine it?  
> 
> 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."
> 
> The hurdle is that as a Guix maintainer, I would not accept your
> dual-licensing statements into my project.
> 
> > I believe we have ... different attitude to making use of legal force  
> 
> You are probably right. I'm a complete pushover, especially in the
> wintertime.
> 
> Kind regards
> Felix

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

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

[Nguyễn Gia Phong via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2759 bytes --]

On 2023-12-24 at 03:41+01:00, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Publishing some source code under the GPL v3 (or later)
> does not preclude [someone] 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.

It's worth noting that CC0 is not a license but a public domain
dedication.  One cannot dual-license it with GPL because copyright
no longer applies to the work: https://creativecommons.org/faq

A CC0 patch to a GPL software does not change the licensing status
of the software, and any modification on top of the public domain
works can continue to be under the GPL.  This goes for other parts of
Guix that alone are not copyrightable like the list of facebook hosts.

Furthermore, even if the author decides to dual license it, it makes
no difference to predatory corporations whether if the information
about the permissively licensed snippets are documented mainline:
that piece of code is still licensed that way.  However, once again
note that the dual-licensed modules will become copyleft after
any modification under the GPL.

The intention of the GPL and software freedom is to protect the freedom
of end-users: it concerns their rights over the overall program.
As long as the program is still copyleft, it would not be possible
to distribute any non-free derivative.

Now you could argue that if a large part of the codebase
is permissively licensed, the rest could be easily rewrite to produce
a proprietary work.  While that is true, the viral property
of copyleft would render this practically impossible, as the chance
of the same parts of guix is contributed solely by people preferring
permissive licenses is really low considering the total number
of contributors.

I understand the fear of a copyleft work being tainted,
it is just irrational in this very case.  On the other hand,
encouraging patches under any GPL-compatible license would put
unnecessary burdens on the maintainers to document which snippet
to be under what license.  This is even beyond the scope of REUSE
which would optimistically already take days to implement for guix.

For this reason, I think it is a reasonable ask for contributions
to be under the same license and authors can self-publish the patch
under a different license if they wish to.  As mentioned, those hunks
will not stay permissive forever in guix anyway, nor that guix
owes contributors the favor to allocate resources on something
that does not dirrectly support its mission.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 248 bytes --]

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7562 bytes --]

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.

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.

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.

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'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?

> 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

Best
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 Sun, 24 Dec 2023 03:41:32 +0100 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4189 bytes --]

Hi there

> It's worth noting that CC0 is not a license but a public domain
> dedication.  One cannot dual-license it with GPL because copyright
> no longer applies to the work: https://creativecommons.org/faq

Actually, in some countries' laws there is no notion of public domain
and it is not possible to waive one's copyright there.  CC0 would fall
back to being a license there.

Also, due to this ambigious status of public domain, there were cases
of business users asking authors of public domain software to also add
a different license.  But this is a rather rare, overcautious approach
and definitely not needed with a carefully-designed waiver like the CC0.

I think my response to Liliana 2 minutes ago is also a sufficiently good
response to the remaining remarks I could otherwise address here.  If
not, please tell

Best
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 Sun, 24 Dec 2023 13:15:05 +0900 Nguyễn Gia Phong <cnx@loang.net> wrote:

> On 2023-12-24 at 03:41+01:00, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> > Publishing some source code under the GPL v3 (or later)
> > does not preclude [someone] 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.  
> 
> It's worth noting that CC0 is not a license but a public domain
> dedication.  One cannot dual-license it with GPL because copyright
> no longer applies to the work: https://creativecommons.org/faq
> 
> A CC0 patch to a GPL software does not change the licensing status
> of the software, and any modification on top of the public domain
> works can continue to be under the GPL.  This goes for other parts of
> Guix that alone are not copyrightable like the list of facebook hosts.
> 
> Furthermore, even if the author decides to dual license it, it makes
> no difference to predatory corporations whether if the information
> about the permissively licensed snippets are documented mainline:
> that piece of code is still licensed that way.  However, once again
> note that the dual-licensed modules will become copyleft after
> any modification under the GPL.
> 
> The intention of the GPL and software freedom is to protect the freedom
> of end-users: it concerns their rights over the overall program.
> As long as the program is still copyleft, it would not be possible
> to distribute any non-free derivative.
> 
> Now you could argue that if a large part of the codebase
> is permissively licensed, the rest could be easily rewrite to produce
> a proprietary work.  While that is true, the viral property
> of copyleft would render this practically impossible, as the chance
> of the same parts of guix is contributed solely by people preferring
> permissive licenses is really low considering the total number
> of contributors.
> 
> I understand the fear of a copyleft work being tainted,
> it is just irrational in this very case.  On the other hand,
> encouraging patches under any GPL-compatible license would put
> unnecessary burdens on the maintainers to document which snippet
> to be under what license.  This is even beyond the scope of REUSE
> which would optimistically already take days to implement for guix.
> 
> For this reason, I think it is a reasonable ask for contributions
> to be under the same license and authors can self-publish the patch
> under a different license if they wish to.  As mentioned, those hunks
> will not stay permissive forever in guix anyway, nor that guix
> owes contributors the favor to allocate resources on something
> that does not dirrectly support its mission.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15945 bytes --]

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.

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.

> > 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 :)

> > 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.

As a side note, if I were a consequentialist, I'd probably be much less
of a software freedom advocate.

> > 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 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 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)_/¯

> > 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? :)

> > 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.

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.

> > > 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.

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…

Best
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, 27 Dec 2023 19:31:06 +0100 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Alexandre Oliva]

Hello, Kosior,

Happy GNU year to all
https://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/2023-12-31-happy-gnu-year

On Dec 27, 2023, Wojtek Kosior via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <guix-devel@gnu.org> wrote:

> 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.

I acknowledge your preference to avoid litigation and coercion in
general.  It's relatable.  I wish to make it clear that I don't intend
to dispute that.

What I wish to do is to point out that you appear to be equating
committing violence with intervening to stop violence.

I understand denying freedom as a form of coercion and thus of violence.

Refusing to give others power to coerce third parties is not violence.
It's a common mistake for people to assume that strong copyleft licenses
take freedoms away, because they establish boundaries to one's legal
rights.  But some legal rights are freedoms (i.e., about one's own
life), and others are powers (i.e., over others' lives), and it's
important to distinguish them to grasp the ethics underneath copyleft.

The legal rights that copyleft licenses grant are freedoms that everyone
should have, that copyright law takes away by default, so a license must
grant them in order to abide by ethics.

But the legal rights that copyright law reserves to copyright holders,
and that copyleft licenses do NOT extend to licensees, are powers that
nobody should have over others; those would be means of coercion, that,
if used, would amount to violence, to abuse.

When facing a situation of abuse, of violence, it may be morally
defensible for someone to turn a blind eye and allow it to proceed.
It's questionable, but unlike the abuse itself, it's not uniformly
reproachable.

But it's also frequently considered socially valuable (courageous,
heroic) to intervene, even when placing oneself at moderate risk, by
using proportional force to defend oneself or third parties from abuse
and violence.

It's ok if you choose not to be a hero.  But making it a point to
announce publicly that you won't stand in the way of violence does not
look to me as good as quietly planning not to do so, which in turn
doesn't look to me as good as standing against violence to the point of
intervening when you witness it.


I hope this makes sense to you,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back

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

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

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

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

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --]

On 2024-01-03, Wojtek Kosior via wrote:
> 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.

I am not at all a lawyer, but this seems like an entirely different
license, and at the very least a pragmatic headache.

"I promise not to sue" might even hold up in one court, but not another;
anyone with a modicum of legal caution would reasonably avoid using
software with such terms, and people who are naive enough to use
something with such a baited risk attached are just setting themselves
up for getting legally attacked.

You claim you do not want to threaten anyone with force, but this sort
of licensing clause opens the door wide to all sorts of legal abuses and
threats.

It honestly feels like a sabotage clause to me, even if that is not the
intention.

I would be very concerned about guix accepting such licensing terms.

live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4562 bytes --]

Hello Alexandre and thank your for your response!

> When facing a situation of abuse, of violence, it may be morally
> defensible for someone to turn a blind eye and allow it to proceed.
> It's questionable, but unlike the abuse itself, it's not uniformly
> reproachable.
> 
> But it's also frequently considered socially valuable (courageous,
> heroic) to intervene, even when placing oneself at moderate risk, by
> using proportional force to defend oneself or third parties from abuse
> and violence.

While not all disagreements can be resolved, it'd be nice to at least
be able to track them down to some "axioms" on which we actually
disagree.  That's what I'm trying to do here and I see that
proportionality is not the *only* criterion I'd apply to decide whether
it is right to use force.  I'd also consider whether I am using force
to (1) directly defend someone, (2) "pay" an abuser for abuse already
done or (3) defend someone indirectly by making a threat to a possible
abuser.  I'd only proceed in case of (1) whereas it seems the community
would like me to at least include (3).

Now, I recognize my approach is unlike and against most people's views.
And it makes getting on with them hard.  Sorry for the nuisance I'm
causing and great thanks to those who, like Alexandre, make efforts to
respond politely and acknowledge my different morality.

Best
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 15:17:21 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org> wrote:

> Hello, Kosior,
> 
> Happy GNU year to all
> https://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/2023-12-31-happy-gnu-year
> 
> On Dec 27, 2023, Wojtek Kosior via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <guix-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> I acknowledge your preference to avoid litigation and coercion in
> general.  It's relatable.  I wish to make it clear that I don't intend
> to dispute that.
> 
> What I wish to do is to point out that you appear to be equating
> committing violence with intervening to stop violence.
> 
> I understand denying freedom as a form of coercion and thus of violence.
> 
> Refusing to give others power to coerce third parties is not violence.
> It's a common mistake for people to assume that strong copyleft licenses
> take freedoms away, because they establish boundaries to one's legal
> rights.  But some legal rights are freedoms (i.e., about one's own
> life), and others are powers (i.e., over others' lives), and it's
> important to distinguish them to grasp the ethics underneath copyleft.
> 
> The legal rights that copyleft licenses grant are freedoms that everyone
> should have, that copyright law takes away by default, so a license must
> grant them in order to abide by ethics.
> 
> But the legal rights that copyright law reserves to copyright holders,
> and that copyleft licenses do NOT extend to licensees, are powers that
> nobody should have over others; those would be means of coercion, that,
> if used, would amount to violence, to abuse.
> 
> When facing a situation of abuse, of violence, it may be morally
> defensible for someone to turn a blind eye and allow it to proceed.
> It's questionable, but unlike the abuse itself, it's not uniformly
> reproachable.
> 
> But it's also frequently considered socially valuable (courageous,
> heroic) to intervene, even when placing oneself at moderate risk, by
> using proportional force to defend oneself or third parties from abuse
> and violence.
> 
> It's ok if you choose not to be a hero.  But making it a point to
> announce publicly that you won't stand in the way of violence does not
> look to me as good as quietly planning not to do so, which in turn
> doesn't look to me as good as standing against violence to the point of
> intervening when you witness it.
> 
> 
> I hope this makes sense to you,
> 

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Wojtek Kosior via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12760 bytes --]

> > 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Philip McGrath]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024, at 3:32 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2024-01-03, Wojtek Kosior via wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I am not at all a lawyer, but this seems like an entirely different
> license, and at the very least a pragmatic headache.
>

In the spirit of sticking to the concrete issue, there is precedent for GNU software accepting changes that the contributor has placed in the public domain: see in particular <https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html>. In fact, since Guix leaves copyright ownership with individual contributors, it seems like there's no way to stop contributors from also licensing their contributions under additional licenses.

I think it could make sense to include in the commit message something like, "I, Alyssa P. Hacker, dedicate my contribution in this commit to the public domain under CC0-1.0.". That would make it clear exactly what changes are covered.

Philip

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

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Mittwoch, dem 03.01.2024 um 22:22 +0100 schrieb Wojtek Kosior:
> > > 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.
I don't think the distinction between is and has is super meaningful
here.  Particularly, what are you threatening the other party with? 
You say litigation, but as we've already pointed out that's an
unintended consequence for those who don't comply.

If you consider licenses a threat, you should also consider dedications
to public domain a threat: anything you contribute to such a project
can and will be abused by anyone claiming ownership over whichever
small parts they add.  What are, from your perspective, the benefits of
the public domain, and how do they hold up w.r.t. the GPL or w.r.t. a
rollover license?

Cheers

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

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Dec 23, 2023, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:

> the fact remains that
> you want to contribute some work to a project under a different
> license.


> 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.

... as long as it is understood that "sole author" carries the
implication that it's not a derivative work.

If it is a derivative work, then Wojtek is a licensee who must abide by
the licensors' terms.  GPLv3 §5 seems very clear that the modified work
(as well as the changes that would turn the unmodified program into the
modified work) must be distributed under GPLv3.

Making it available under unauthorized terms could make that
distribution infringing, and integrating that potentially infringing
change seems to be gratuitously inviting trouble.  IANAL, but I'd
strongly recommend against creating such a potential legal mess.

Anything that could be construed as or fall back to a looser license,
from a promise not to enforce the license to using CC0, might plant this
sort of legal landmine on the project, in the worst case, and in the
best case would be effectively equivalent to having the change
published, integrated and distributed under GPLv3+, since after
integration the whole could only be made available like that anyway.


Now, if Wojtek is indeed "sole author" of the changes, then they may
indeed be licensed under any terms of his liking.  But unless the
changes amount to separate programs, integrating them with GNU Guix code
forms a derivative of a GPLv3+ work, which can only be distributed under
GPLv3+.  So even if the changes are made available somewhere under
permissive terms, the version that goes into Guix will be GPLv3.


So, rather than trying to find a different license or invent new
wording, I'd recommend that the version integrated into Guix states that
the license is GPLv3+, which would be factually correct as far as the
project and any downstream recipient is concerned, and at most link to a
copy of the contribution under a more permissive license, *if* the
change is indeed not a derivative work.

Telling whether it is a derivative work is not trivial, though.  A
telling sign that it probably isn't derivative is if the changes could
conceivably have been made without even being in possession or having
ever seen a copy of the unmodified program.  That's not a strict
requirement, but it's a strong hint.

So please proceed with caution.

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back