Mike, can you please explain your stance further? This conversation caught
my attention because I currently have a GPL license on the repo I've put
on github. (It's GPLv3). I wasn't satisfied with the other license
options, I put in GPLv3 because I want people to have maximum ability to
do what they want with what I put in github. I have no desire to get
anyone arrested. I am however trying to do the right thing, which I think
includes understanding where you are coming from on GPL issues. Maybe
it's a thing that I just don't understand well enough.

I particularly like the part of it that states,
"To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others."

To be clear, I don't expect anyone to "prevent others" from denying me any
rights I might claim. The whole subject of rights and the issue of
'rights' as anyone might imagine them emanating from (in someone's mind)
the nation-state or alternately from the individual or the collective
actions of individuals - that's a whole discussion in and of itself.
Personally I find the GPLv3 rather wordy (overlong, seems to try to do too
much).

What I'm trying to do is find something that appropriately conveys that
people can do what they want with what I've authored, but I'm also trying
to communicate that if someone wants to copy it or alter it, etc., that's
ok, it's up to them, but like a lot of people I have some ideas about what
should remain intact in order for the idea to have utility. There are
certain ideas inherent in my proposal that I want to see conveyed in any
future version of it. I'm not sure quite how to communicate this in
"licens-ese," though. I really don't know how. Completely open to
suggestions.

I'm not sure how to ask the questions I'm trying to ask, actually. But to
start, here's something I can put together in the form of a question which
hopefully makes sense:

If GPLv3 is found wanting, what do you suggest? Would you be willing to
provide an alternate license (or some kind of protocol or suggestion that
relates to this) that would make sense to apply here?

Thanks in advance

See:
https://github.com/ABISprotocol/ABIS/commit/de6f389efde0fe34191732b1535422bbc050f465

> On 12/14/2013 12:37 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>> We can link together, pool resources and build common
>> infrastructure while securing a dignified existence for ourselves.
>
> I submit that attaching a threat to use (state) violence against people
> who use that common infrastructure out of conformance with the author's
> /diktat/ is itself undignified. Exceedingly so.
>
>> Or we can lock ourselves away, fight against each other, erect walls and
>> put our trust into central power which derives its legitimacy and
>> consent through the front of authority.
>
> This is exactly what folks who apply state-backed copyleft licensing
> like the GPL to their creations are doing. The GPL relies fundamentally
> upon that illegitimate, unsupportable, justly-hated central authority
> for its very wording.
>
> Amir, when you find someone using your GPL-branded code having stripped
> the licensing and attribution from it and without having released the
> source code, are you going to personally threaten that person with
> physical harm? Call the police? Call a lawyer? If you're not willing to
> take such steps, then you have no need of the GPL. And if you are
> willing to do so, a tribunal will be convened to consider the revocation
> of your anarchism merit badge.
>
> Peace,
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>