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

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

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