Hi T.J., sorry this is late--this thread got lost in my inbox.

Thank you for your feedback regarding GPLv3. My reason for choosing it was
because it explicitly grants an irrevocable patent license to downstream
coders, whereas GPLv2 does not. I would think this would make it more
attractive to them, since there's no way I or my employer could sue them
later for patent infringement. I realize that this license (and as far as
I know, no license) can protect me against patent suits filed against me.

I don't think you're being too harsh or overcritical, but I would like to
hear your thoughts on the specific clauses you oppose beyond the
"additional terms" section. I read that section again, but it doesn't look
like they affect the Four Freedoms--they instead affect related aspects of
software distribution, like warranties, copyright notices, trademarks,
indemnification, etc. I don't see this as a problem per se since it's
outside the scope of software freedoms, but maybe I'm misinterpreting it?
Maybe there's something important I haven't thought of?

I don't want to get into an argument over whether or not copyleft is a net
win or net loss, since I don't have enough real-world data to back either
claim :) However, I don't buy the argument that the GPL is undesirable
because it can demotivate would-be contributors whose hearts were in the
right place (i.e. the company reprimands or fires them if they violate the
GPL). This is because this would happen no matter what the license is--the
company had better be vetting the licenses and ensuring that they're
compliant *before* the code gets included, not after. In fact, I can
imagine that the penalties for violating certain proprietary licenses can
be much harsher than violating the GPL, depending on their terms. However,
it's management's and legal's problem if there are violations, not the
developer's (and frankly, a company that blames its developers for
non-developer problems like licensing is a poorly-managed company in my
opinion).

Now, the GPL can certainly discourage code adoption in proprietary contexts
due to its copyleft terms, but a dual-license would remove that concern,
right? The proprietors would choose the more permissive license.

Thanks,
Jude

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:10 AM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My concern was mainly related to the fact I didn't know what they were,
> which you have answered adequately. Are they LGPL?
> > libpstat and fskit are both LGPLv3 (my motivation for v3 over v2 is the
> explicit patent license).
>

> Generally speaking, with the GPLv3 patent clauses, the only people who
> worry about the patent clause are people who actually hold patents. In
> practicality, the GPLv3 is waste of time because it does not protect you.
> If you or I write GPLv3 code and it is considered infringing by a third
> party patent holder, the GPLv3 will not legally prevent you or your project
> handed a fully enforceable "cease and desist" order or from being sued for
> damages, nor will it protect your users or downstream coders from the same
> lawsuit -  because you were never granted a license in first place.  Thus,
> unless you are a patent holder, writing code for use, the GPLv3's patent
> clauses are not horribly useful.     If you want protection from patent
> litigation, look to the OIN instead.

>
> I remember reading that Black Duck estimated the use of GPL3 at about 12%
> and the LPGL at maybe 3% out of all GPL licensing total. The Linux kernel
> developers have strong objections to GPL3, and so do I. The thing that
> bothers me with the GPLv3 is that it is a bad license, conceived for
> political and philosophical reasons that are almost completely divorced
> from the reality of law, software development in the world we live in. You
> might think that I am being harsh and overcritical, but I do not believe
> so. Yes, the license was examined carefully by lawyers - so what? So was
> the US DMCA, and we all know how that turned out in court.
>
> A critical example, the "additional terms" clause is designed specifically
> so that one author can limit where and how opensource code can be used by
> downstream programmers. Stopping the use of code defeats the entire
> purpose of the license, the FSF, and open source in general. Additional
> terms can be added by downstream coders to limit it even further.
> Opensource licenses should encourage the use and improvement of code, not
> actually prevent it.
>
> I would characterize the GPLv3 as a "potentially abusive" license that
> diminishes the rights of downstream coders, while offering very little
> actual patent protection, unless the upstream coder is someone like Intel
> or Microsoft.
>
>
> >Again, I'm willing to dual-license them with something more
> BSD-friendly. I was leaning towards ISC earlier since that's what OpenBSD
> uses, but I don't have a strong opinion. Is there something the MIT
> license offers that you particularly like?
>
> Why do I like the MIT license? Because it easily allows downstream
> programmers to relicense as virtually any license you want. The code can
> be incorporated into whatever it is needed for, even if you need it for a
> closed company product. The whole point of open code is to have it be
> usedand HOPEFULLY improved. You might object to the lack of copyleft in the
> MIT license, but I prefer to deal with reality rather than idealism. The
> reality is that there are very few real world cases where people actually
> ask for code that has not already been released into the wild voluntarily.
> Copyleft enforcement cases have forced some companies to release code, that
> is true - but in the end what real value did forcing the issue offer the
> community? The end result is that the violator stopped using GPL code
> sure, but then they probably fired the people who might have contributed to
> opensource as well as scaring away the management from greenlighting using
> opensource in the company.
>
> That is why I respect the GPLv2 license for what it is, I tend to lean
> toward the MIT. I dual license GPLv2/MIT so that I get the best of both.
> The reason I prefer this is so the code can be used by the widest audience,
> and incorporated into what would otherwise be a GPL incompatible license
> and yet a version is still guaranteed to be available for everyone.
>
>