« Licenses, licenses, licenses
07 December 2015
The first and most important thing to remember is that, if a work is yours, you and you alone have the right to decide what license is good for you. While I might prefer that you use a license which respects the freedom of users of your work, the decision of whether you find that to be important is yours. Licenses are irrevocable, once you’ve released something under a certain license then anyone may use the work under that license – so you’d better be sure about the license you pick.
Let’s start with the big one: code. What should free software be licensed under? There are a couple of obvious choices, and each has certain advantages and disadvantages.
GNU General Public License
This is the license published by the Free Software Foundation, and is the one recommended by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. There are two major versions in circulation: version 2 and version 3. There are some fairly important version differences, and also some caveats.
However, in general you should use the GPL if you feel that creating a community where improvements are circulated to benefit the whole community is important. If you don’t want to create a community around your code, then you should choose a different license.
As the GPL is copyleft, you should consider the fact that some users may chose to not use your software because they do not wish to be required to make their changes also free software. While this is very selfish, it is also understandable and you should consider it while choosing a license.
In my personal opinion, version 2 of the GPL is a very good license, as long as you are not concerned with “tivoisation” of your software. While “tivoisation” is a slightly unfair term (TiVo aren’t the devil), introduction of effective anti-circumvention measures to free software that restrict users is very harmful behaviour. If you decide to ship free software, you need to play by the rules.
Unfortunately, version 2 of the license is not as internationalised as version 3, and it is very likely that it may not apply in certain jurisdictions. While this isn’t a problem for me (Australia has copyright law very similar to the US), this might be a problem for you.
I personally agree with the view on anti-circumvention. Such technology is entirely valid, so long as the user has control over the software (and that’s the entire point of free software). While it is true that “tivoised” software can contribute useful patches back to the original project (as happened with TiVo), one can imagine a dystopia where no users can run modified versions of the free software they have been given. At that point, their freedoms are all but useless, and that is the dystopia Richard Stallman and the FSF are trying to counteract. I was not always in favour of version 3 of the GPL, mainly because the anti-circumvention clause always hit me as being vague. However, what’s quite important to establish upfront is the intent of the author.
The GPL version 3 also has much nicer patent protections for users, resulting in much more explicit patent grants from all contributors and distributors to all users. This is nice, and if you agree with the “tivoisation” clause (or you don’t care) you should use version 3 as it is a superior license in several respects.
The Danger of “Or Any Later Version”
Unfortunately, all versions of the GPL have “unsafe defaults” to use the software vernacular. Specifically, the Free Software Foundation recommends that you use the following statement to show that the software is licensed under the GPL (emphasis added):
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) <year <name of author> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; **either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.** This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
The phrase “or (at your option) any later version” is very clearly a bug in this statement, as it results in ambiguity regarding what license the software is licensed under. As I said earlier, it is the choice of the developer to state what license the code is under, not the user. If you feel that “tivoisation” is not an issue for you and you will not license your code under the GPLv3, the “or later” clause can allow someone to improve your software and license the improvements under the GPLv3. Due to the license incompatibilities, you will be unable to use their improvements without changing your license to the GPLv3.
This is quite bad. I’ve discussed this with Richard Stallman, and he considers the above scenario very unlikely. He claims that it’s worse to create a license incompatibility with other projects which might want to use my code than to ensure that all modifications to my project are actually usable.
Either way you feel, the entire concept of “or any later version” is just dangerous and you should omit that section of the statement – specifying clearly what license you chose.
The Apache license is probably the best license for large bodies of free software, where you don’t really care about the idea of copyleft. It provides very nice protections against software patents created from the software you’ve licensed, and is in general a very nice license with little to no flaws.
MIT / BSD
Now we come to the runt of the litter: the short licenses. For small projects, these may be adequate.
Unlicense (Public Domain)
Sometimes you wish your code to be dedicated to the public domain (which is very admirable), but you want to ensure that people in jurisdictions without a concept of public domain can also have the same freedoms as the rest of the world. Notable examples of public domain software include SQLite, qmail, PyCrypto and other such software projects.
If you do decide to make your code public domain, be aware that there’s no requirement that you be referenced as an author in any of the code. So if you care about attribution, making your code public domain will not ensure that.
I would not recommend using the Creative Commons licenses for software. They are intended for media or other such works, not something like code.
There are some issues with CC0, namely that releasing a work under the CC0 does not waive patents that the artist may have. Therefore, you may actually not have the freedom to practically use the work despite it being licensed under the CC0. As software patents are a broken system by design, you should not use a license which explicitly exposes your users to patent trolls.
An important question about media (text, video, audio, etc) is what the text actually is. Does it represent someone’s personal views? Is it an artistic work? Or is it a functional work (such as a recipe or instructional video)? These are quite important questions, because each might require certain restrictions.
In general, I recommend the Creative Commons suite of licenses for all forms of media. The only question is which version of the Creative Commons license you should use.
For personal views, I very seriously suggest that you should use a No Derivatives Creative Commons license. As they are your views, it wouldn’t make sense that people should have the right to distribute changed versions of your views with your name still attached. This is why all of my blog posts are licensed under the Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0 license.
I don’t really agree with the idea of licensing works such that they cannot be used for commercial purposes (money isn’t evil). But at the same time, it is the right of the artist to decide what license they will choose. If you feel that commercial use of your work should be disallowed without your express permission, then use this license.
If you feel that copyleft is important, that users of modifications of your work deserve the same freedoms as users of your original work, then you should consider using a Creative Commons Share-Alike license.
This is quite important if the work is your personal views, or if they are some other work where the freedom to make modifications to it doesn’t make sense. You should be wary of using this license for artistic works, as much of art is based on the age-old idea of plagiarism (or rather, appropriation and derivative works).
CC0 (Public Domain)
As with the Unlicense, CC0 is the Creative Commons public domain license. It ensures that even in jurisdictions without the concept of public domain, the work provides broadly the same freedoms as everywhere else. Media being put into the public domain is always a very positive thing, as it allows other artists to build on your work. However, you should be aware of the fact that a lack of obligation to attribute you will probably result in much less attribution than if you used a different Creative Commons license.
As CC0 has an explicit exception for patents, permitting artists to maintain a patent monopoly over a work in the public domain is a fairly major contradiction. Due to the lack of patent exemptions, CC0 should not be used for works which are reasonably patentable (because someone else might patent the work and then go after your users).
Unless otherwise stated, all of the opinions in the above post are solely my own and do not necessary represent the views of anyone else. This post is released under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license.
Want to keep up to date with my posts?
You can subscribe to the Atom Feed.