[kwlug-disc] Permissive vs copyleft licenses

[Chris Frey]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:10:54PM -0500, Doug Moen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, at 11:39 AM, Bob Jonkman wrote:
> > Considering that the GPL exists to 
> > protect the freedom of *people* using software, and they're abandoning 
> > the GPL, ...
> 
> The problem is that the GPL doesn't exist to protect the freedom of
> people *developing* software. And since software licences are chosen by
> software developers, it maybe isn't too surprising that 2/3 of projects
> choose a permissive licence that prioritizes the developer's own freedom
> over user freedom.

Which freedom?  I see three you're listing here:

	1) the vendor's freedom (terminusDB)
	2) the developer's freedom (user of terminusDB)
	3) the end-user's freedom (person using developer's product)

TerminusDB (#1) used GPL in their python *client* library, not just their
database. [1]  That forces the developer (#2) to use GPL.  The end user
(#3) is happy because he has a working product and full source code,
all the way to the backend database.  (Does he have his own data?
Nobody knows, it outside of scope apparently.)

In business terms, making the client library GPL was unnecessary.
There's no need for applications to be GPL to use your database, and
probably hurts database adoption.  Even mysql's client library is LGPL
(or was, way back when I checked).  But keeping the database itself free
is a good move, and GPL helps there.

The GPL takes a larger view.  In the GPL world, the user (#3) is also
a developer, or can choose to be any time, or can choose to hire on
at any time, and deserves protection too.  Permissive licenses take
the position that it's not important to protect the end-user's freedom.

"Just trust us."


> As it says in the article, "The world has changed – and code freedom
> is being overtaken by developer freedom."

That line bothered me as soon as I read it.  I think the correct
translation would be:

	The world has changed -- it is more important to support
	developers who create proprietary software than it is
	to build the world of Free Software.

The truth of that statement depends entirely on your context and
your world view.  More important for whom?  And more important for
how long? (as Mikalai has pointed out)

I recently watched an interview with a FreeBSD guy [2] who made the
point that he, as a developer, didn't want the headaches of legal work.
If you're not going to sue anyone anyway, why choose a license that relies
on your own willingness to do so for its success?  Good point, and
shows some of the non-legal and non-technical issues around license
choice.

It is a fascinating place we're at.  We are swimming in open source code,
but business is always looking for an angle to make money, whether
that is suddenly going proprietary, or whether it is cutting loose
a cost (CentOS) that doesn't help the main money-making engine (RHEL).
The choice for freedom isn't quite as stark anymore if you're looking
at code, but it is very stark if you look at the internet as a whole.
Companies want your data, and they are generally just as eager to lock
you into their solution as they've always been, whether they use GPL or
BSD or Apache code under the hood or not, they don't care.  It just
makes it faster to reach the point of capturing more users.

In the developer's paradise we are currently living in, BSD or GPL
is almost a moot point.  People are falling over themselves to give
away source code.  But in the user hell we are also living in, GPL
and even AGPL are tools that users can only wish were more in use.

In the GPL world: We. Are. All. Users.  It is the end-user level freedom
that matters, not that of businesses or technocrats.

- Chris


[1] https://github.com/terminusdb/terminusdb-client-python/blob/v0.0.9/LICENSE
vs
https://github.com/terminusdb/terminusdb-client-python/blob/v0.3.0/LICENSE

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cofKxtIO3Is