🇳🇱
While I'd still view the parity license as viral by nature, and wouldnt personally use it, I do see it as a improvement over AGPL. I would not even contribute to software that has any form of viral aspects to its license.
That said I also agree that it is not really a legal document and unlikely to standup to well in court. Which for me adds to why I'd personally avoid it.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
I'm not sure the problems with it are entierly why id refuse to contibute to software that uses them.
Obviously virality of licenses has caused hosts of issues with open source projects in the past. Namely if you want to pull in dependencies or even just talk to it on the same computer it can cause hell for legal departments or personal legal issues. In the end it presents a barrier where I feel one does not need to exist and can be rather damaging.
My personal issue goes well beyond the technical ones though. Basically when I say free I mean free, as in freedom.
If someone wants to write some software that uses my own, and then they want to make money specifically off their own software, regardless of if it uses mine as a library, Why should I care. Making money isnt evil, and your only close sourcing your own contributions/modifications, so by my own moral standards it would be wrong of me to object. But I also find that if you try to control the behaviors of others that is itself not a character trait I see as positive out of the gate.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
I think, at least with this explanation, it seems like you and the FSF have a different point of view towards freedom.
The FSF talks about user freedom. You on the other hand, the freedom of the developer/company/….
GPL is written to guarantee that users are "in control of software" as in "go to someone else and let them fix it".
There is no problem with making money with or without it, but yeah, companies usually try to keep some secrets.
No, I disagree. I am specifically and explicitly talking about user freedom, it just so happens that companies and developers are part of that group.
I as a developer (even under the GPL) and quite free to develop the software however I wish with little regard to the license. It is only if a user wishes to use what I have done as well (download a copy from me) that the licenses get invoked, and thus their freedom I care about.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
Yes, exactly. And GPL is made to guarantee the freedom of those users, who might download a modified version from someone else, because this someone else, has to provide them with the source code.
For LGPL the developer would only need to publish the library source code. For GPL they would need to publish the source code of their application as well.
Which makes sense, since usually users don't care about the library a software uses, but what the software itself does.
I dont see that as protection of the user or giving the user freedom at all, it is taking away their freedom, the freedom of the user to download modified applications if they want to (even when it doesnt provide the source code).
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
That doesn't make much sense to me. The user can always download the application, the developer just has the duty to provide the source code.
And it definitely prevents users from ever ending up in a Vendor lock-in, since they can always take the source code and let someone else continue to develop it (if they are willing to do/pay for that).
It reduces the developer's freedom to provide downloads for their software, if they don't provide the sources, but users?
But he can't. If i as a developer modified the code and do so by bringing in non-0compatible license code, while I am a developer and most free to do that and run the code for my own personal uses with no concern, **users** are not allowed to download and use copies of the software I would otherwise be happy to share.
It isnt reducing my freedom as a developer, im plenty free to use the modified closed-source software. It is only the user-base that is not allowed to have a copy.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
No, I that's not how GPL works.
Users are allowed to download your software, you just don't want to offer it, because you would need to provide the source code.
The GPL license doesn't restrict a user in anything. The opposite is the case, it allows the user to make legal claims towards the developer.
Effectively this might means that developers are unwilling to share software they wrote for themselves, but that's not a restriction of users.
No your missing the point. As I said if the software i created pulls in a non-compatible license or is closed-sourced then NO a user **can not** down load it because no download can be provided since the source code can not be provided under the GPL.
As such it limits the **users** freedom since access to any such software is denied to the user, despitethe developer being perfectly free to use and have access to it.
The fact the the GPL limits user freedom by denying them the freedom to download the above mentioned software, since it can not be provided to the user, is exactly the point.
Limiting the developers freedom to distribute the software in synonymous with limiting the users freedom to obtain such software.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
Actually you can still offer such software as a download. And users can still download it without a problem.
But all copyright holders of the library are able to sue you to publish your entire code base. As well as users can.
Therefore it does not limit users, it just makes developers not really eager to share such software.
Also let me ask this way: How can a user be a user, when they can't use a software? So what GPL restrict, if at all, then it's potential users.
If you can be sued then no, you can't, legally, offer it. I take that as a moot point and not a valid counter argument.
It prevents the access of users by making it legal for such access to exist. There is really no way to talk our way around this obvious point, user freedom is limited as they do not have access to software they otherwise would have.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
When I apply this to another, real world scenario, this means that by requiring restaurants to point out allergens, we restrict restaurant visitor's freedom, because people who are not willing to provide this list, are no longer allowed to open a restaurant and can enjoy their awesome food only at home alone, is that right?
No I wouldnt say that would be a correct analogy. A more accurate analogy would be the following:
Some chef sometime int he past wrote a recipie for a delicious meal, he put a note at the bottom that says "only people who provide a list of ingredients (allergy information included in that) are allowed to cook this food and share it with others".
Then if someone makes a meal based ont he recipie (and with their own modifications of course) and uses a can of food that does not itself list the ingredients, so he is unable to list the ingredients as a result, is therefore in violation.
The GPL would basically mean that such a chef is free to make the above meal for himself and enjoy it and eat it, but other people would **not** be allowed to try his food without it being illegal.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
That is not a distinction, if the food can not be shared then by extention of that fact they are not allowed to try it.
Even from a legal perspective it is the same. Whoever actually facilitates the person trying the food is the one illegal, it doesnt default to the chef or the consumer.
The reason you see it as the developer is just because in most cases if there is a violation the link which provided access to the software (which wasnt allowed) is most likely provided by the developer. However if this access is provided by someone else, anyone, even if the user themselves is the one sharing it without the authors permission, then the act of sharing it is illegal even for the user.
@zig@functional.cafe @cwebber
@freemo
Again, I think it's not that **they** aren't allowed to try, but he is not allowed to share.
This minor wording might causes the same outcome but from a legal perspective is a major difference.
Because: When they wouldn't be allowed to try, and still do it, they could be sued. While when he isn't allowed to share, then he can be sued for making it accessible.
And therefore at least from a legal perspective it restricts this recipe would restrict the chef's freedom.
@zig @cwebber