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