Re:Toward Copyleft Equality for All
by dredmorbius on Monday January 20, 2020 @04:36PM
(#22102268)
I've reread Kuhn's piece several times. It's that unfortunate mix of tantalising and unclear.
My understanding is that it's not the dual-licensing per se that's toxic, but the goal of copyleft-noncompliance legal actions. Rather than, as the FSF and SFC seek: "Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance." (https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...) The businesses of which Kuhn is critical seek instead "to 'convert' those FOSS users into paying customers for proprietary licensing for the same codebase."
Arguably, the failure here might be of the GPL failing to specify what is an acceptable remedy, though if that were defanged to only be "release affected code as <copyleft license>", it might afford too great a latitude to other forms of black-hat actors.
I'm not sure if I agree with Kuhn's assessments or remedies. I think the discussion's worth having, and appreciate your input.
My understanding is that it's not the dual-licensing per se that's toxic, but the goal of copyleft-noncompliance legal actions. Rather than, as the FSF and SFC seek: "Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance." (https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...) The businesses of which Kuhn is critical seek instead "to 'convert' those FOSS users into paying customers for proprietary licensing for the same codebase."
Arguably, the failure here might be of the GPL failing to specify what is an acceptable remedy, though if that were defanged to only be "release affected code as <copyleft license>", it might afford too great a latitude to other forms of black-hat actors.
I'm not sure if I agree with Kuhn's assessments or remedies. I think the discussion's worth having, and appreciate your input.