This is what is wrong about licenses
When so many steps and details need to be considered before including a couple of games in a repository, how can you expect people to use free software without certain fear, uncertainty and doubts? ;-)
// 4 responses to This is what is wrong about licenses
Feel free to leave a reply
Comments are moderated: Rude and offtopic ones are out!
slack
20070711
I know I am going to sound like a typical linux zealot, but I can't resist :P
First of all, from the point of view of an end user (i.e.: neither a developer nor a distributor), every free software license under the sun just says "Do as you wish, at your own risk. There is no warranty." No place for fear there.
Moreover, this is not about a random repository out in the internet. It's about Debian, a project which has very strict guidelines about the software it distributes since the very beginning. There is a lot of legal nitpicking on the devel lists, so the final user doesn't have to worry about legal issues.
And yes, software licenses are long and boring, and restrictive, and boring. But things are not better with proprietary software. Have you ever read a Microsoft EULA? It's only easier if you want to modify or redistribute the program: "You can't do that. Period.". The rest are ugly use restrictions.
Well, end of rant. Cheers,
slack
sole
20070711
But software licenses shouldn't be like that. For instance, I have tried to completely read GPLv3 like I don't know… ten times or so. But I can't. My mind just resists to accept the necessity of such complexity. And I don't get why should I spend so much time fighting against my mind in order to convince it to keep reading so that I can understand why Linus Torvalds is arguing with Richard Stallman about this license.
Then there are the Commons licenses, which are very simple to read and understand: you can copy this, or you can't. You can do derivative works, or you can't. Simple and straight to the point. See for example the terms for Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.
If software licenses (and I mean ALL of them, not only free software licenses) were simpler, it would be easy to decide whether you like the software and accept its conditions or not. Instead of having to call a lawyer each time something needs to be added to a repository, whichever the repository is.
And thus using that extra time for being able to make more work in practical and productive stuff such as new software. Or, for the users, having more time to use the software. It would benefit everybody.
Sometimes it looks like "linux zealots" prefer to engage themselves in those neverending philosophical discussions instead of really going to the point and demonstrating their free* philosophy. For outsiders, it looks like crazy.
slack
20070711
Unfortunately, we live in a world dominated by lawyers :(
I agree with you. It shouldn't have to be this hard. My point was that it's unfair to criticize free software just because they are taking the same legal steps everyone else needs to. The difference is that related discussions take place in public lists instead of being buried in the depths of a legal department. It may look weird from the outside, but it's a necessary evil.
By the way, Creative Commons licenses are pretty verbose, too. You just linked to the human-readable summary, instead of the full license. Things start to get messy if you want something more restrictive than BSD-like licenses.
sole
20070711
Yes you're right … the full creative commons license is more verbose. But even though, it's possible to read it without spending 3 days or calling a lawyer.
Apart from that, and while I agree that is good to be transparent, I think this is still overcomplicated. We should simplify as much as possible in order to make things easier.