Re: Concerning uniliateral decision making with respect to the coreutils package

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Russ Allbery [14/Jul  8:09am -07] wrote:
> Personally, I agree with the fight against corporate control of software,
> but I think copyleft is only one tool that is only useful in some narrow
> and specific situations. It has helped the Linux kernel immensely, and I
> think good lessons should be learned from that. If you have a massive
> copyleft code base and vast commercial incentives for contributing to that
> code base, copyleft is incredibly powerful and forces a lot of code to be
> free software that wouldn't otherwise be.
>
> But I think its utility in most other situations is overstated. I find it
> very hard to see a way in which copyleft matters one iota to the
> advancement of free software when used as the license for some small
> personal project, for example. I do not use copyleft for any of my
> personal software, not because I disagree with its use tactically as a
> tool, but because I cannot envision any scenario in which it would ever be
> meaningful *for that piece of software*. Copyleft imposes a bunch of
> overhead (or at least does so in theory; many of the people who use the
> GPL have clearly never read it and don't actually follow its rules) and
> requires users read tedious legal documents, and I personally don't like
> imposing those costs for no obvious gain.
>
> This is my problem with your argument: It is absurdly reductive to the
> point of being religious rather than reasoned. Copyleft is not some
> magic spell that protects us from corporations. It's just a tool, which is
> useful in some situations and not in others.

You're right to argue against the idea that it's a magic spell and it's
interesting to read your arguments against the view that copyleft is an
effective means to the ends for which people think is useful.  But going
to the other extreme and calling it just a tool is, I think, just as
reductive.

I am proud every time I put the GPL on something I write, because in the
act of doing so I align my activity and intent with a strong form of the
free software sharing ethos that's a significant part of my motivation
for working on it.  Actually, I am not sure I care that much about
preventing corporations from reusing my work in the way that the GPL
makes them not able to do; I haven't thought about it for a long time,
at least.  This expressive role of the GPL is what matters to me.

It would be reductive to try to reduce that expressive act to just
"Sean will make more contributions if he can experience a feeling of
pride, and we can put that on the scales alongside the effects copyleft
might have on corporate contributions" (I'd probably lose!).

=2D-=20
Sean Whitton

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=S3YO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--