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

[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.

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

pgp9FjYXOz3E8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature