

Copyfree is not the new copyleft. - appamatto
http://blog.appamatto.com/2011/12/04/copyfree-is-not-the-new-copyleft.html

======
dedward
I must be missing your point... please explain.

"I can’t distribute my program without also distributing its sources if it
contains a copyleft component."

Well that's perfectly fair if that's what the original author wants. If you
want to distribute derived work from my copyrighted material, I've decided let
you do that without paying me or even talking to me as long as you follow some
rules (maybe the GPL, whatever). You are of course free to contact me and
negotiate a different deal. You are, after all, wanting to use MY copyrighted
code to build something and distribute it.

"Copyleft also contains all the asymmetry of copyright: licensees will have
their right to silence violated but the original creator can go ahead and
create proprietary derivatives."

If I write code, of course I'm free to distribute it however I want. I can
grant various permissions to people normally not available to them due to
copyright law. "Licensees" don't have any rights violated - they have whatever
rights they chose to accept or negotiate or purchase or whatever when they
decided to use my code and what that would imply. In the absencse of that
license, they simply can't use my code at all. They are free to write their
own. They are also free to contact me and negotiate terms.

I think I'm missing your point though - what is it exactly?

~~~
appamatto
There are two big points I wanted to make.

1) _This isn't just a matter of taste._ Choice of license has moral value.
Although legally "it's my party and I can GPL if I want to" I don't think this
is the case morally, and I try to argue that it the post.

2) _Copyleft is not anti-copyright._ Copyleft imposes additional restrictions
that are not possible in a world without copyright. Copyfree (and specifically
copyright waivers in countries that allow them) best simulate a world where we
can share freely and also choose to withhold freely.

3) _Copyleft is often used specifically to sell proprietary software._ This is
because the arrangement between creator and licensees is much more asymmetric
in copyleft. If you're directly selling the software you're licensing then
you're probably going to need to use a copyleft license.

I think #2 is well known although not often written about, and #1 seems
contrary to what people on all sides (copy{right,left,free}) say. I haven't
seen #3 written about elsewhere.

Those are my points, did that clarify or muddy?

~~~
apotheon
re: 3 . . .

 _BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft_ : <http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622>

It has been addressed elsewhere.

