So - what do I relicense everything to? Given that there seems to be a reaction against the GPL (for good reason) at the moment.
@tindall >somehow doesn’t rely on copyright?? Unfortunately the only thing that doesn’t rely on copyright is public domain.
Also, the GPL wasn't just written by RMS and the FSF. It was really a community effort, with a discussion period, and written by lawyers that didn't even work for the FSF. A lot of projects just can't reasonably relicense unless they have very few copyright owners.
I'm all for distancing ourselves from RMS/FSF, but there's a lot of stuff around them that happened in spite of RMS and the FSF (such as my dear Octave) that's still valid.
@JordiGH Absolutely - but there are other issues with GPL. For instance, vanilla GPL v3 really doesn't require contributions back to the source in a lot of situations, and the AGPL is perhaps not enforceable.
@tindall Oh? I haven't heard about the AGPL. Has someone tried to enforce it and failed? I think Mongo just got tired because it was a lot of work, not because a judge told them "no".
@tindall Yeah, I don't know what to say. :-/
All license enforcement can be difficult. In Octave we used to have people make proprietary GUIs on top. We couldn't really go after them with legal cases. It was easier to just make our own free GUI so people wouldn't have a reason to use the non-free one.
@JordiGH @tindall Even if you’re against RMS there is no reason to distance yourself from the GPL, GNU project or FSF at all. The FSF will have transparent re-elections for the entire board soon, GNU software is still good and the GPLv3 is still the best free software license for copylefted projects.
@SuperDicq I appreciate that this is your position but I'm explicitly interested in _alternatives_ to the GPL right now.
@tindall Alternatives to the GPLv3 include: CC BY-SA Microsoft Public License European Union Public Licence Eclipse Public License Microsoft Public License
All have downsides compared to the GPLv3 tho, like no patent grant and some allow linking. So use with caution.
It's copyleft is very demanding, closing the private fork loophole in FSF approved copyleft licences. That makes it non-free, but it doesn't sound like this would bother you. Corporations definitely wouldn't like it.
It's also OSI approved, so there is at least some institutional backing.
@tindall You could try the Sandia license (https://github.com/cdanis/sandia-public-license). Joking aside, though, there’s strong tension between your first priority and the rest of them. Consider that the megacorps have legal departments, after all. It is no longer 1997 and the big guys aren’t afraid to use, co-opt, or abuse free software.
@bonzoesc thanks for the link! it doesn't look like there's an "ethical source license", although the Hippocratic 2.1 looks neat.
@bonzoesc The prohibit-bad-behaviours via licenses thing is almost as old as free licensing itself. HESSLA is an earlier example. I don't think it will really work: copyright infringement is a very minor legal recourse for keeping someone in line who is willing to kill or harm other people.
I mean, maybe if you tell the government that if they use your software in military applications that they are infringing on your copyright it could work, but... I don't know, I'm skeptical.
@tindall GPLv3 is still, just remove the “or-later” clause if you don’t trust the FSF to not make a worse license in the future.
fsf / licensing
@tindall for now i'm kind of taking a wait and see attitude to outcomes at the FSF, though things don't really look great. i think i still want strong copyleft for some stuff, but i am kind of nervous about "or (at your option) any later version" clauses if the org remains compromised the decent people bail, which does seem to be in the process of happening.