Copyleft - because there are still more bad people than good

[Jastiv]

I know some people have the opinion that permissive licenses, or even no copyright notice at all, are better solutions to eliminating proprietary software from the world. While, in an ideal world, we would not need copyleft licenses, or licenses at all, people would simply always share the source code as a matter of custom, as a matter of simply what people do and would not even consider another course of action to be profitable or even viable, since people would simply refuse to use proprietary software, however, we do not live in a utopia where all people (or even most people) are so virtuous.
We need the GPL and copyleft licenses like it, because there are a lot of bad people out there who wish to create proprietary software, mostly because of their unrestrained lust for greed and more importantly, power over others. The GPL forces the developer to give back to the community regardless if they believe in its ethical principals or not.
That said, when we are successful, there will become a point when copyleft will no longer be necessary, but the question is, how will we know when we have reached that point? Is there a certain percentage, or even certain programs that are acceptable to be proprietary software? The point is, we are far from that threshold. New proprietary software is still being created and toted as a business model in certain industries. Some software has been commodified to the point where the only obvious solution is to use the free software, but in other cases, proprietary programs dominate.
So, if I were to make a checklist of when copyleft would no longer be necessary, it would have the following items.
1. people would refuse to invest in proprietary software it would be called, “not a money making strategy.”
2. Almost every piece of new software would be free software.
3. cars, body parts, appliances etc would have free software as a matter of course, in fact stores would refuse to sell hardware with modifiable software without the source code.
4. Proprietary software would be illegal in one or more areas of use due to the potential of exploitation of consumers.
5. The promotion of proprietary software ideology would be relegated to “fringe communities” people would be canceled, banned from most chat, forums etc for their promotion of repulsive fringe views, much like blatant racism is today (so that even someone as repulsive as Trump wouldn’t be able to stoop to it.)

[freemedia2018]

I know some people have the opinion that permissive licenses, or even no copyright notice at all, are better solutions to eliminating proprietary software from the world.

They are still free software, and flat-out easier to use. People who understand the GPL really don't get what it's like for someone who doesn't, sitting on the other side of it.

This isn't to negate most of the points about the GPL in this thread. It's just to set the tone.

We need the GPL and copyleft licenses like it, because there are a lot of bad people out there who wish to create proprietary software, mostly because of their unrestrained lust for greed and more importantly, power over others. The GPL forces the developer to give back to the community regardless if they believe in its ethical principals or not.

Except when it doesn't. Such as Tivoisation-- or the Linux kernel being gradually taken over by Microsoft, via the Linux Foundation (which holds the rights to the kernel, the name and the largest share of copyright on the code. It also has someone from Microsoft as the second-in-command-- shades of Nokia.)

This doesn't negate what you're saying either... it's a problem for exactly the reasons you say are problematic. But I think people lean on the license as a kind of firewall, and that firewall is only a primary layer in what needs to be a multi-layer solution to multi-prong attacks on software freedom.

I can elaborate on that, I've done so before.

That said, when we are successful, there will become a point when copyleft will no longer be necessary, but the question is, how will we know when we have reached that point? Is there a certain percentage, or even certain programs that are acceptable to be proprietary software? The point is, we are far from that threshold.

And getting farther from it. Because I'm interested in teaching beginners how to work with free software, and because I wrote a LOT of little snippets of code, I often use CC0 for my work. But, for key projects I think the GPL is very important. I think without the GPL, which even Torvalds says was a great idea for Linux, the Linux kernel is going to suffer-- perhaps irrevocably. It sort of already has.

My latest project is actually GPL3: https://codeyourownlanguage.neocities.org/quasi.html

And it's the first time I've used GPL in years. With all that's happened lately, to the FSF and to free software in other areas, I sort of felt like it was the thing to do.

The FSF by the way, only recommends the GPL for code that has 300 lines or more. I do a lot of stuff that has less than that. The javascript I'm writing now has about 6 or 700 lines.

1. people would refuse to invest in proprietary software it would be called, “not a money making strategy.”
2. Almost every piece of new software would be free software.
3. cars, body parts, appliances etc would have free software as a matter of course, in fact stores would refuse to sell hardware with modifiable software without the source code.
4. Proprietary software would be illegal in one or more areas of use due to the potential of exploitation of consumers.
5. The promotion of proprietary software ideology would be relegated to “fringe communities”

These are good hints.

people would be canceled, banned from most chat, forums etc for their promotion of repulsive fringe views, much like blatant racism is today (so that even someone as repulsive as Trump wouldn’t be able to stoop to it.)

I don't support cancel culture. It's unscientific, undemocratic, and culturally leads to the support of laws that are unconstitutional.

Bad ethics, I think.

Not to change the subject, but you mentioned it-- It's a very relevant topic these days.

I don't think there's anything missing from your argument for you to have a valid point.

I think if you want to get through to people who don't already understand and agree with your point, it's going to take a lot. Perhaps more than it ought to.

We are up against the greatest lobbyists in the world, you know.

Even I lean towards the permissive side in practice. But I'm aware of the arguments, and not unsympathetic to them. I warn people that without the GPL, GNU/Linux won't likely survive.

That leaves BSD, which is permissive, but things get a lot more complicated than that.

Copyleft is a part of a larger puzzle, but it's a very significant and underestimated piece.

Also, copyleft is more work in the short run. People are people, and they very often don't do what's best-- even from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest.

You have to sweeten the deal for a lot of people if you want them to do what's good for them.

[Julius]

I am also rather supportive of copyleft, not because people are inherently bad, but because they are lazy and get a lot of wrong incentives to keep their stuff closed.

However I started regretting having put some basic stuff under copyleft licenses, as I ended up getting emails even 10 years later with questions about what usage is allowed (mostly for some school/university projects). So yeah, depending on what it is, a super simple do what ever you want license is probably better.

[Lyberta]

Deleted.

[Technopeasant]

However I started regretting having put some basic stuff under copyleft licenses, as I ended up getting emails even 10 years later with questions about what usage is allowed (mostly for some school/university projects). So yeah, depending on what it is, a super simple do what ever you want license is probably better.

Yeah, I release production level projects copyleft, but smaller code snippets or loose media assets I release as public domain.

Though I find attribution clauses just as if not more annoying in this respect, which is why I use CC0 rather than CC-BY.

Honestly, the debate about when copyleft would no longer be necessary is rather similar to the debate between when the state would wither away under true communism,

[Wuzzy]

In projects that I control, I always use (libre) licenses without copyleft, for a very simple reason: Pragmatism.

What I do not like about the real-world copyleft licenses is that they are incompatible with each other. This creates the absurd problem that it's technically a violation to combine free software A with free software B, if they both have different copyleft licenses that are incompatible with each other.
There are also big charts you need to look up to see which license is compatible with other licenses. Yuck!

I want to make the legal hurdles for users of my software as low as possible. And restrictions just raise the bar. I don't want this. I want my users to have 100% peace of kind.

I DO acknowledge the rationale behind copyleft, however. I DO acknowledge that it succeeds in preventing corporate and other abuse. However, as copyleft proponents, you should also acknowledge that this effect comes at a price, namely, the silly license incompabilities. It would be better if these license incompabilities wouldn't exist in the first place, but I'm afraid that's not something that will be fixed anytime soon. I see that some efforts to make GPL and CC compatible, but that's far from a real solution.

Anyway, I do not categorically reject projects only because they are copylefted. But I will always consider it as a legal hack, and not a ideal solution.

The true solution in the long run is either abolishing copyright, or at least radically reducing it's duration, in order to increase the pool of Public Domain. 100+ years are just WAY too long. Murderers are released from prison in a shorter time. Almost all the artwork that you grew up will not enter the Public Domain within your lifetime. I find this thought disturbing. Most stuff that is Public Domain today is very old and foreign to you, as it was created long before you were born, in a different time and culture. Copyright, especially with such an extremely long duration, is putting our culture in shackles. I think the lost cultural potential due to the a crippled Public Domain is a much underappreciated loss.

I think the Free Software Movement has neglected copyright as such for too long. Yet copyright is one of the most important weapons that proprietary software has. By weakining copyright, we automatically weaken proprietary software as well …
… but also copyleft.
So yeah, maybe it was neglected cuz parts of the Movement just love copyleft, and they know copyleft will disappear when the copyright expires. Those who propose copyleft need to remind themselves that it's always just a legal hack, to flip copyright on its head. But copyleft relies on copyright, i.e. the same system that proprietary software lies on to legally monopolize itselves. So copyleft is a little bit like a deal with the devil. Stronger copyright leads to stronger copyleft AND stronger proprietary software. So yes, copyleft DID prevent abuse, there's no denying that, but it comes at a price.

These are just my 2 cents.

[Jastiv]

In projects that I control, I always use (libre) licenses without copyleft, for a very simple reason: Pragmatism.

I forked a project that was already under gpl2 or later because I didn't want to reinvent the wheel (not to mention I had no idea how to do so, and to this day I am still confused by some of the code in the project.)

What I do not like about the real-world copyleft licenses is that they are incompatible with each other. This creates the absurd problem that it's technically a violation to combine free software A with free software B, if they both have different copyleft licenses that are incompatible with each other.
There are also big charts you need to look up to see which license is compatible with other licenses. Yuck!

Yeah, that is probably the biggest negative thing about copyleft is license incompatibilities, fortunately only a few copyleft licenses are really used all that much, and now by-sa is one way compatible with gplv3 (so things that are by-sa can be gpl3, but not the other way)

Anyway, I do not categorically reject projects only because they are copylefted. But I will always consider it as a legal hack, and not a ideal solution.

The true solution in the long run is either abolishing copyright, or at least radically reducing it's duration, in order to increase the pool of Public Domain. 100+ years are just WAY too long. Murderers are released from prison in a shorter time. Almost all the artwork that you grew up will not enter the Public Domain within your lifetime. I find this thought disturbing. Most stuff that is Public Domain today is very old and foreign to you, as it was created long before you were born, in a different time and culture. Copyright, especially with such an extremely long duration, is putting our culture in shackles. I think the lost cultural potential due to the a crippled Public Domain is a much underappreciated loss.

I think maybe it is some unconscious desire on the part of the public to turn famous authors, musicians etc into essentially a kind of nobility, cause then they get royalty checks to their kids (and even grand kids) who don't do anything. Also a lot of it is in the collective guilt of how poor we treat artists and other cultural creators of all sorts, the majority of who don't make enough to live on from the art and have to find other means of support.

[Technopeasant]

https://creativecommons.org/share-your- ... e-licenses

I was rather pleased when I came across this, even if for me the BY is more onerousness than the SA (which is why I still never use CC BY-SA media in my projects; another reason why I love OpenCipart and descendants is because they are CC-0). I think it ridiculous that one should have to cite the source to a single piece of artwork that is just say 96x96 pixels, or a three second sound clip, which is why I always release such minor works as CC-0 myself. Again, attribution is as pragmatically fraught as copyleft, in my opinion.

The conception for copyright was based entirely on an outdated model that reproduction required a certain amount of capital, and that most reproduction would be done by commercial rivals. In the age of the Internet it is unenforceable as originally intended, as the majority of people reusing copyrighted works is as hobbyist or fandom projects for free, and is just a cudgel used by those rich enough to have lawyers. It is the same reason I am broadly supportive of pay-what-you-want for digital media, because it acknowledges that in the real world your audience can just pirate it for free if they want, so you might as well address that with a system that encourages generosity.

But again, the general consensus seems to be be that you have to pick the right license for the right circumstance, cognizant of their strengths and weaknesses. As you do when picking a programming language.

[Huitsi]

I think it ridiculous that one should have to cite the source to a single piece of artwork that is just say 96x96 pixels, or a three second sound clip, which is why I always release such minor works as CC-0 myself. Again, attribution is as pragmatically fraught as copyleft, in my opinion.

I view attribution as a right of the recipient, rather than the author. Players of your game — who are (potential) game developers themselves — have the right to know where you got those awesome sprites and sound effects. Even non-developers may be interested in more music by the same author, even if the one in your game is just a short repeating loop. Attribution is thus comparable to having the source code — it let's the recipient benefit from the knowledge you have.

I haven't been following this thread closely so apologies if this is terribly redundant or off-topic.

[freemedia2018]

I view attribution as a right of the recipient, rather than the author. Players of your game — who are (potential) game developers themselves — have the right to know where you got those awesome sprites and sound effects.

Attribution is thus comparable to having the source code — it let's the recipient benefit from the knowledge you have.

Nice point! Techno is right too, "attribution stacking" sucks. But attribution is a nice "feature" when it is shared.

[Technopeasant]

I view attribution as a right of the recipient, rather than the author. Players of your game — who are (potential) game developers themselves — have the right to know where you got those awesome sprites and sound effects. Even non-developers may be interested in more music by the same author, even if the one in your game is just a short repeating loop. Attribution is thus comparable to having the source code — it let's the recipient benefit from the knowledge you have.

Oh, I absolutely agree, which is why I will cite my sources if they are worth citing. Some of them aren't though, and that is the point.

[Huitsi]

Oh, I absolutely agree, which is why I will cite my sources if they are worth citing. Some of them aren't though, and that is the point.

If they aren't worth citing are they even copyrightable? You should document the copyright and licensing status of any copyrightable work anyway (even if it is CC0) because downstream (eg. distros) might want that information.