I am a lawyer, and I really appreciated your "free" versus "fair" line.
One tidbit on the GPLs: They require you to share alike if you share the software with others, but do not require you to share the software with others. You can make changes and larger programs entirely for your own or your company's internal use, and not share anything.
The GPLs mention this explicitly, and implement it using concepts like "distribute" and "convey". Your obligation to share alike doesn't kick in unless you distribute or convey.
That got GPL into trouble later on, when it turned out folks often ran software for others to use over networks, rather than sharing with users in copies for them to install locally. That led eventually to AGPL, a kind of fork of GPL, but outside FSF, also to licenses that simply require sharing back whether you distribute your work or not.
I don't believe the AGPL requires distribution of the sources unless you are exposing the software in some way. So, a company is free to run modified AGPL software on their intranet without having to offer the sources to anyone but their employees.
The first paragraph of section 13 of AGPLv3 reads:
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Mmm, I agree. I think I got tripped up by this line:
> That led eventually to AGPL, a kind of fork of GPL, but outside FSF, also to licenses that simply require sharing back whether you distribute your work or not.
...because I read it as "the AGPL requires sharing back whether you distribute your work or not", and felt like splitting hairs for the case where you expose the work, but only internally to a group.
Are there licenses that say if you run an altered copy, you have to contribute back sources, no matter who interacts with it?
You need to be careful though. For example for Commons Clause they accepted changes by Drew Vault (ironically the author of the article we are discussing here) which are misleading at best. Now it says that commercial use is not allowed [0], while it is really only selling that is not granted [1]. In other words, do read the license if you want to know about it.
I like the idea of a license that is "fair", but there's something about GPL that rubs me the wrong way where I feel it accomplishes the goal of fair in some antagonistic manner.
To me, GPL feels more like holding a legal gun to your head and say "You used my code, now play fair". It's not your Mum asking you nicely to share your toys with your brother. But then MIT is too far the other way where it's your Mum saying that if you don't want to give any toys to your brother even though he gave you a bunch then that's your ethical code and you have to live with it.
I wish there was a license that did feel like the "it's the right thing to do" argument without the threat, but I just don't know how you'd achieve that. Even something where you license the core as GPL and then the majority supporting libraries as MIT doesn't feel right to me.
As a lawyer, do you have any ideas along these lines?
Think of it more as the price you pay for using someone else's work. Just like when you pay $1k for a license to ship some proprietary software, you agree to instead pay for using this code by sharing your source, too. You're free to not pay either price and write your own, of course.
> I like the idea of a license that is "fair", but there's something about GPL that rubs me the wrong way where I feel it accomplishes the goal of fair in some antagonistic manner.
It kind of is antagonistic: GPL started when RMS wanted to fix his printer and Xerox said, "No." IIRC the printer software in question drew on or was based on his own prior work.
The GPL is a weapon to pre-emptively undermine sort of venal mentality RMS had already encountered. Free Software is a reaction to a kind of enclosure of the commons.
The folks who regularly do GPL compliance work have a very reasonable set of principles they apply when doing that work. Legal action is a last resort and GPL violators are given every opportunity to comply. The only legal actions that have been taken have been from years of stonewalling or even blatant refusal to comply and the consequences of those legal actions have been reasonable.
GPL is pretty much a "it's the right thing to do" kind of license. GPL violations are widespread and the terms are rarely enforced. Even when they are, in 99.9% of cases there are no penalties(unlike most commercial licenses), just a requirement to publish your code and adhere to the original terms of the license.
One tidbit on the GPLs: They require you to share alike if you share the software with others, but do not require you to share the software with others. You can make changes and larger programs entirely for your own or your company's internal use, and not share anything.
The GPLs mention this explicitly, and implement it using concepts like "distribute" and "convey". Your obligation to share alike doesn't kick in unless you distribute or convey.
That got GPL into trouble later on, when it turned out folks often ran software for others to use over networks, rather than sharing with users in copies for them to install locally. That led eventually to AGPL, a kind of fork of GPL, but outside FSF, also to licenses that simply require sharing back whether you distribute your work or not.