Timeline for Is there a good license for a libertarian programmer who's against intellectual property?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2024 at 19:55 | answer | added | Radiokot | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 9:30 | comment | added | David Schwartz | In a no copyright world, people would be free to negotiate whatever restrictions on the use of their own property that they want. You can pay me $10 if I agree not to use my lawnmower on Thursdays. I could agree to give you some piece of software I wrote if and only if you agreed not to distribute it further. You seem to want to take away this freedom to contract that would exist without copyright. Why do you want to take away my freedom to contract with people where I get things I value in exchange for agreeing not to do things they don't want me to do with my property? | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 10:25 | answer | added | MSalters | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 4:47 | comment | added | Brandin | OP sounds like he wants to craft a "Freeware" license (off-topic here), a class of licenses popularly used in the 1990s. Each was a little different, but you were generally allowed to redistribute binaries (no source was provided). Modifying the binaries and/or redistributing modified versions may or may not be allowed depending on the license. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 15:05 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @Brandin Maybe I don't fully understand your proposed terms, but doesn't CC BY-SA basically work that way? Copyleft applies to downstream modifications, but it carries no source code obligation -- is that different from your proposed terms? (Or do you mean recipients must share the binaries further? That's different from the OP's intent: in a no-copyright world, there would be no such obligation.) I understand that CC BY-SA specifically is not perfect here, but the substance of the mechanics seem like they fit, and seem to be open source (the FSF recognizes CC BY-SA as free). | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 9:30 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 30, 2018 at 3:05 | |||||
| Sep 24, 2018 at 8:19 | answer | added | MadHatter♦ | timeline score: 21 | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 5:48 | comment | added | Brandin | It sounds like you want to create a license similar to the GPL, but instead of obligating redistributors to provide source code, you could obligate them to provide at least the binaries (and optionally the source code), as well as obligate them to pass on the same rights to the people they redistribute to. It might be possible to create such a license, but it would definitely not be open source in any definition, so therefore off topic here. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 5:28 | comment | added | curiousdannii | If you don't believe in IP, and you're a libertarian in general, then why do you care what other people do with their own software that doesn't belong to you? If you want to prevent all legal cases about software you need to build political support and change the legal system, not draft a new license. The only way I can see you using this license is by being in contradiction to your own principles. If you don't believe in IP then wouldn't you just be meddling in the lives of others if you try to get them to stop suing others over their software? | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 5:14 | comment | added | Sparkette | @curiousdannii: I was imagining the license would be written such that any attempts at bringing charges would just be thrown out of court as invalid claims, because according to the license, charges can't be brought for anything. Regardless, the non-aggression principle does permit the use of force for the sole purpose of blocking/remedying others' use of force, so if someone was able to successfully bring charges somehow, the original author could legitimately retaliate by bringing charges against them, on behalf of (and likely for the benefit of) whoever it was they sued before. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 4:56 | history | edited | curiousdannii | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 25 characters in body |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 4:55 | comment | added | curiousdannii | How do you intend to stop person A from bringing charges against person B without aggression or force of any kind? | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 2:35 | comment | added | Sparkette | @apsillers: I was thinking that, which was why I mentioned at the beginning that there's a tl;dr at the end, where I summarized the important part. Isn't that enough? Or should I move that part to the top instead? A lot of it is just providing explanation of what I mean. About CC, I don't want the attribution requirement anyway, but what are the problems it typically has for software? | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 2:21 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | I think this is (at its core) a great question, but the philosophical lead-in buries the question a bit. Perhaps you could add a question to the top ("Is there a license that will require my work and its derivatives to be distributed as if copyright did not exist? Once a recipient has a copy, they can do anything they like with it, but so can any further recipient.") I doubt the exact philosophy is relevant to answering the question -- I wonder if "I am opposed to copyright law in general," would be sufficient background? You could link to an article about libertarian opposition to copyright. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 1:45 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | I think CC BY-SA comes close, but probably won't work. It is a copyleft license (so you can't shed the freedom to distribute/modify at any point downstream), and, unlike the GPL, does not require the distribution of "corresponding source". However, it is one-way compatible into the GPL, so a downstream modification could come under the GPL. Also, CC licenses are discouraged for software, but it's not clear to me if you'd mind any of the associated "problems", since your intent is significantly different from most in the FLOSS community. See opensource.stackexchange.com/q/6016/50 | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 0:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 24, 2018 at 1:43 | |||||
| Sep 24, 2018 at 0:29 | history | asked | Sparkette | CC BY-SA 4.0 |