Hi Mark, Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> skribis:
> (It looks like your message never made it to the list, so quoting a bit > more extensively to make sure everything you wrote is also in this > message.) Oh, weird. > On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:28 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> skribis: >> > I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise >> > without >> > having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example >> > could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute >> > software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users' >> > freedoms cannot be strip off."? >> >> I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think >> it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here. >> >> Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet >> we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve. >> >> WDYT? > > Agreed. But I think I didn't explain very well what my concrete > suggestion was. So this is what I am actually suggesting: > > Replace this text: > > Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the > advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU > Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure > that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. > > With this: > > The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable > developers to actively defend users' Freedom. Which includes > distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to > ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off. OK. (with s/Which/This/) > This leaves off when/how we precisely define these policies (when not > to use copyleft, or LGPL or some exception, and when to require > copyright assignment/bundling or not). But does make clear that the > first priority is defending user freedom. I see, especially in light of your other comments about copyright holders. It seems to me that the wording you propose somewhat softens the preference for copyleft, though. How about: The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend user freedom. These policies include distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot be stripped off, unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement of user freedom. Anyway, I guess we’re really nitpicking at this point, overall we’re saying the same thing! >> I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the >> FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”. The >> motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF >> “to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations. > > Right, but the point is to be able to enforce defending user freedoms > effectively. And leaving copyrights with corporations instead of the > actual developers or the FSF makes it so we cannot effectively do that. Yes. >> Regarding the pros and cons of copyright assignment, we could discuss at >> length. :-) However, regardless of what we think of copyright >> assignment, I believe the social contract should be positioned at a >> higher level. IOW, I view copyright assignment as a policy issue, and >> not as a defining principle. (Note that currently copyright assignment >> is not mandated for new packages, and in practice only a fraction of GNU >> packages require it.) > > I believe using a copyleft license (and which one), and having a > strategy to effectively use it to defend user freedom are both policy > issues. The defining principle is that we favor policies (using > copyleft licensing) and strategies (keep copyright with the active > developer/FSF that will enforce copyleft) that maximize user freedom. Right, that clarifies to me the purpose of the rewording above. Thank you! Ludo’.