commit 9be5626e065761fc738e8a8e50d2c3f009570078
parent 62dab5661e00034ed85e954056fcbbb0f87ce3d3
Author: Jake Bauer <jbauer@paritybit.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:25:15 -0400
Update ethical license section
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/garden/software-licenses.md b/content/garden/software-licenses.md
@@ -146,9 +146,9 @@ License](https://json.org/license.html).
They are, practically, only useful in the same way Copyleft licenses are
useful. That is to say, they might [scare
a corporation](https://lwn.net/Articles/707510/) away from using something, but
-they largely don't achieve anything actually meaningful compared to permissive
-licenses. In fact, they're more likely to create a messier open source
-ecosystem than anything else.
+they largely don't achieve anything actually meaningful on a societal level. In
+fact, they're more likely to create a messier open source ecosystem and be
+a pain for individual programmers than anything else.
Even if a corporation is scared away from a particular piece of software by an
ethical license, it's typically not much trouble for them to make their own,
@@ -173,10 +173,10 @@ quirks and incompatibilities between them</a> such that you can't, for example,
migrate from a proprietary SQL database to a PostgreSQL database without
rewriting the SQL statements used in your code.</p>
-Not to mention that it's usually really difficult, if not impossible, to
-actually comply with many Ethical licenses. While some are written well such
-that it's pretty cut and dry what you can use the software for, others are not.
-Take this from the original JSON license for example:
+Not to mention that it's usually difficult, if not impossible, to actually
+comply with many Ethical licenses. While some are written well such that it's
+pretty cut and dry what you can use the software for, others are not. Take this
+from the original JSON license for example:
```
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
@@ -189,17 +189,32 @@ not affected by it because they can just make their own thing or ignore the
license entirely, then what is the point? From my point of view, this is
largely just posturing.
+Individual developers are also far more comfortable with using licenses written
+in easy-to-understand language and with clear ramifications. While it's
+technically not wrong to say that one should carefully examine the license of
+any piece of software they wish to use, this isn't practical for the majority
+of people. Many people are not confident in their ability to understand the
+oftentimes complex legal language used in many of the more complex ethical (or
+copyleft) licenses which likely means that they won't be willing to work with
+or use a piece of software for fear of getting things wrong. Given that the
+goal of ethical licenses is ostensibly to make a more just and less evil
+software ecosystem, this issue is likely to lead to many ethically-licensed
+projects languishing in relative obscurity with limited reach while
+permissively-licensed alternatives see greater adoption and use (likely with
+some exceptions, but it certainly won't be the norm, just like with copyleft).
+The bandwagon effect is very much real in the realm of software licenses.
+
In summary, the issues that ethical licenses purport to address are societal
issues that are not appropriately addressed using software licensing or the
copyright system. Plus, it's also pretty easy for a corporation to just ignore
-the license, similar to how many use the GPL, but with even less backing for
-individual devs to fight lawsuits against license violators (if they even
-bother with that).
-
-Just like with many copyleft licenses, this seems good on its face, but breaks
-down in the real world. Ethical licenses put a larger burden on individual
-developers compared to corporations while attacking a very real problem from
-the wrong angle. If you really don't want evil organizations to use your
-software, it's far more effective to [write stuff that isn't useful to them in
-the first place]().
+the license, similar to the situation with the GPL, but with even less backing
+for individual developers or small groups to fight lawsuits against license
+violators (if they even bother with that).
+
+Just like with many copyleft licenses, the concept of ethical licenses seems
+good on its face, but breaks down in the real world. Ethical licenses put
+a larger burden on individual developers compared to corporations while
+attacking a very real problem from the wrong angle. If you really don't want
+evil organizations to use your software, it's far more effective to [write
+stuff that isn't useful to them in the first place]().
