

Set your code free - mcantelon
http://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free

======
jmillikin
Careful - many legal jurisdictions do not recognize an author's right to place
its work in the public domain. SQLite, arguably the most famous/successful
example of public-domain software, has a paragraph on its copyright page[1]
dealing with this circumstance. I remember reading (though I can't find a
reference) that the SQLite authors regretted placing their choice of license,
due to the legal issues, and stated that if they were to choose again they'd
pick the new BSD or X11 license.

    
    
        Let me ask you: how often have you passed up on utilizing a great software library just because its open source license was not compatible with your own preferred flavor?
    

Usually only when it's an unusual / poorly-designed license, such as WTFPL or
four-clause BSD. Though sometimes, if the library is particularly important to
whatever I'm doing, I'll choose/write a GPL'd version over BSD.

    
    
        Contrast this with the GPL/LGPL, which are one-way streets, or put another way, they are an entry without an exit. To paraphrase a classic song, your code can be checked out anytime you like, but it can never leave. It’s easy to see that if you want your code to be used as widely as possible, copyleft is perhaps not the way to go. But then, that’s sort of the whole point of copyleft, of course: you can look at my code, but if you touch it in a way I don’t approve of, I’ll crucify you with law and impunity.
    

Well, yes, that's the point of copyleft. It simulates a world where all source
is available, and embeds it into current copyright law. As more works become
available in the embedded "sandbox", there is more incentive for others to
open their work.

Somewhat unrelated, but the outright hostility towards copyleft that I
sometimes see from the BSD side is baffling. I recently had an internet-
argument about using the GPL for some software I released[2], where some of
the same claims in this article appeared. Most notably, that using the GPL
"doomed it to relative obscurity" and "copyleft code is contaminated". From
where do these beliefs originate? Most of the software I use every day is
available under the GPL -- the only cases I can think of which aren't are Xorg
and OpenSSH.

[1] <http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html>

[2]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ajbvb/cpython_haske...](http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ajbvb/cpython_haskell_ffi_bindings_to_python/)

~~~
apinstein
What turned me against GPL was mysql -- MySQL AB decided that shipping Mysql
with a commercial product was a "violation" of GPL and thus we'd have to buy a
commercial license.

Their argument is essentially that you can't _use_ mysql for a commercial
product because if you do, you're "linking" to it and thus need a commercial
license. If using a database as a database server doesn't count under the
"work product" of a database, then what does?

Thus, I have to assume that any company backing GPL software might eventually
go that route, making it dangerous to my business to ever try to use it for a
commercial product.

That is a worry I don't want to have, and thus I use non-GPL open-source
whenever I can.

This is what the OP meant by "contaminated", and since many people don't like
to use GPL code for this same reason, it is what lead him to call it "doomed
to obscurity". Clearly hyperbole, but point taken.

~~~
dangrossman
There's no legal precedent for MySQL's argument that simply using their
database is linking.

There's not even legal precedent that linked code creates a derivative work.

~~~
lolcraft
A disputed matter. No one is going to bet his business on that issue, when
alternatives exist.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works)
But if you give it for free, neither Linus nor the FSF will lift a finger
(like the NVIDIA drivers) ;)

------
pvg
_If you failed Ethics 101 (sociopaths, raise your hand) or are not one to
philosophize, you can safely quit reading here._

Or if you value your time or don't like being hectored.

------
j_baker
This was a reasonable post until it got into how "free" software advocates use
the powers of state violence to enforce their crooked ways. That just seems a
bit far-fetched to me.

~~~
kiba
To an anarcho-captialists, this is quite a reasonable view.

You just need a different perspective.

~~~
arto
Indeed.

------
mrkurt
Given the international variations in public domain copyright law, I wouldn't
do this without thinking about it pretty heavily (and doing a great deal of
research). Your code can be "more free" with an MIT/BSD style license in some
cases.

------
cjbprime
_If you failed Ethics 101 (sociopaths, raise your hand) or are not one to
philosophize, you can safely quit reading here._

I love ethics, and my sense of ethics leads me to use the GPL. I'm a
consequentialist/utilitarian, and that tells me that I should behave in a way
that maximizes the utility of the software I release. I think that the GPL has
a fine record of causing excellent-quality free software to come into being,
so I use that; it's a strategic choice.

It's possible that someone could make an argument that releasing software
under a BSD license, or indeed public domain, results in a greater volume of
free software than when you use the GPL. I've never heard that argument made,
though, and the success of Linux contrasted with the failure (as free
software) of FreeBSD is one example of why I'd be suspicious of that claim.

Since we're talking about ethics, we could try to work out where yours
diverge. It sounds like you might be a deontologist of some kind -- you say
you're worried about people experiencing violence as a result of decisions
people make to release GPL'd software, but that's extremely rare, because no-
one forces anyone else to violate the license of GPL'd code; instead, people
will just use other code instead.

If the outcome you're fixated on bothers you even if GPL software doesn't
_actually_ cause anyone to lose everything in a lawsuit (are there any
documented examples of that happening?), you don't appear to be a
consequentialist, or to choose your behavior based on expected consequences.
What do you choose it on instead?

~~~
prodigal_erik
I'll sign up for deontology. The user has a right to learn from and improve
their tools. If sapience has a purpose, that's a huge part of it, and I find
this to be the main ethical argument the author neglected. I know some users
don't care about this (they're honestly fine with doing only what the vendor
supports) but I've never had much respect for that attitude, so I'm not moved
to contribute to proprietary or non-copyleft work unless paid well.

------
boucher
Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of CopyLeft licenses.

~~~
tensor
How so? Copyleft has always said "you are free to do things our way." That's
the entire intent and why proponents of the idea like to write Free with a
capital, to distinguish from the usual definition of the word.

~~~
boucher
Do I really need to point out the ways? Agree or disagree with CopyLeft, this
is just extreme:

\- Applying the coercive machinery of the state in this way always boils down
to the threat of physical violence for non-compliance.

\- [you've] given men with guns a pretext for tearing apart a life, or lives

\- I have no interest whatsoever in wreaking havoc on people who want to use
my code

\- Not only copyleft advocates but anybody affixing a licensing statement to
open-source software is guilty of ... magical thinking

~~~
tensor
It's an odd way of looking at things, but not incorrect. If you refuse
repeatedly to submit to law, physical violence is the necessary end result.
What he does misrepresent is that his rant is true of _all_ application of
law. I certainly do not think anyone would seriously claim all use of law is
bad.

At any rate, it does not misrepresent the GPL. It describes it fairly well. It
is his stance on law overall that is extreme: the position of anarchy.

~~~
boucher
For an extremely loose sense of the term physical violence perhaps. In any
case, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a single case of Copyright
enforcement in the United States (or any other first world society in modern
history) where physical violence was used.

As such, it does misrepresent the GPL. The author is implying that anyone who
uses the GPL wants to hurt you and your family. And that is absurd.

------
apinstein
Regardless of MIT/BSD/Apache/public domain choice, I am heartened to see so
many people coming out in favor of these licenses vs copyleft.

