Software licensing and my opposition to copyleft

I regularly allow myself to get drawn into discussions on software licensing, largely because I see the same problematic claims repeated over and over. Invariably, the discussion leads to the same places with varying results. So I think it's best to write down my position and answer a few common rebuttals.

I'll start by saying that I am a rather terrible activist, and I attribute this to the fact that I see myself as a deeply practical person. While I oppose all forms of intellectual property, this opposition is rarely practiced. I regularly publish software that is copyrighted by me. I pay for and consume copyrighted media. I generally avoid violating copyright. I've even held my nose and signed a couple patents, because that was the expedient thing to do and it wasn't a hill I was willing to die on.

In practice, my opposition to intellectual property appears in some very light advocacy when it comes up and the application of the UNLICENSE in as many places as possible. But even that gets pushed aside by practical concerns, as I typically dual license software under both the MIT and the UNLICENSE, because some folks are afraid of the UNLICENSE.

My opposition to intellectual property (patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, etc.) itself comes from both ideological and practical concerns.

Ideologically, it's pretty simple: I don't believe that ideas can be meaningfully owned as property. That is, I see property as a means to non-violently resolve conflict over scarce resources. But ideas are not scarce, and thus, to me, they are not property and thus should not be treated as property. This is a fundamental assumption on which all intellectual property rests, and so, I reject it from first principles.

Practically, the courts and policies that make up intellectual property law have become corrupt, and this can have significant negative consequences around the world. One of the big ones is the cost of important drugs. But I digress, Information Feudalism covers this in more detail than I ever could. There are of course objections to this. For example, the lack of monopoly protections might prevent people from making the drugs themselves, lacking financial incentive. But I've always found this to be a weak argument, as there are plenty of examples in history of people developing important medication even without the reward of monopoly protection. Information Feudalism explores this better than I could.

From this opposition, my opposition to copyleft follows simply: copyleft requires copyright to function, and thus, I oppose it.

Why oppose copyleft when it is a hack against intellectual property itself?

A common rebuttal to my opposition to copyleft is that most serious copyleft proponents are also opponents of intellectual property too (or at least, oppose copyright). And thus, all that is required is for me to understand this hack in order to come to my senses and support copyleft as a tactical weapon against copyright itself. But there are some problems here.

Firstly, if I oppose copyright itself, then is it really okay to use the same system I oppose against itself? I think "yes" is absolutely a defensible answer, but I think "no" is as well. It is perhaps analogous to the stance of a pacifist. With that said, I don't consider myself a pacifist.

Secondly, this somewhat assumes that a world without intellectual property and a world in which the four software freedoms were codified into law (effectively making copyleft universal) would be similar worlds. I don't think they would be. For example, in a world without intellectual property, I would support the right of persons to publish binary programs while making its source code obfuscated or impossible to attain. This is a clear violation of the four essential freedoms as described by the Free Software Foundation. Yet, it would be legal---but perhaps not ethical---to do it in a world in which intellectual property does not exist. However, there is a flip side to this: in a world without intellectual property, users would be free to reverse engineer said programs without fear of legal reprisal.

Thirdly, there are practical reasons to oppose copyleft. Namely, when I publish source code, one of my main goals is for as many people as possible to use it, regardless of whether it's other individuals or giant corporations. Given the current intellectual property regime, corporations are incentivized against the use of copyleft software in a large variety of circumstances. Thus, copyleft software, particularly libraries, is regularly avoided by corporations. Since some of these corporations also play a huge role in the FOSS world itself, this leads to systemic network effects that push folks strongly towards the use of permissive licenses. Thus, putting aside ideology and activism, it is simply a reality that if I publish a library with a copyleft license, it's less likely to be used by folks, which is inhibits my goal.

Fourthly, the use of copyleft somewhat implies that my highest goal is the preservation of the four essential freedoms. But my highest desire is actually to end intellectual property itself and thus the state's enforcement of monopoly power.

As I said above, I'm a pretty terrible activist. A good activist is willing to give things up in exchange for advocacy. But I care more about sharing my code as much as possible.

Do you support laws that enshrine software freedom?

If software freedom is the four essential freedoms as described by the FSF, then, no, I don't. However, I do support software freedom in the sense that I would advocate for others to provide that freedom as much as possible. I might even go as far to say that it would be unethical to deny those essential freedoms to users. But I would not support laws to enforce them because I don't think such laws should exist without requiring the notion that ideas can be owned.

This leads to an important distinction that I draw but that seems routinely ignored among denizens of the web. Namely, that laws and ethics are not one in the same. One can be opposed to using a law to inhibit some undesirable behavior while simultaneously finding that behavior unethical.

A good example of this is plagiarism. I am categorically opposed to plagiarism, even if the license allows it. But I am also opposed to using laws to inhibit plagiarism, again, because it requires laws that recognize ideas as property.

This commonly comes up in discussions where folks release software under a license that allows some bad behavior (like plagiarism) and then complain when that plagiarism happens. People inevitably respond with some low brow blame-the-victim nonsense, "well, that's what you get for using a license that allows it." But this completely neglects the nuance that one might be opposed to some behavior on ethical grounds but might not want to unleash the full coercive power of the state on preventing it.

Why use the UNLICENSE instead of the BSD0 or some other license?

In principle, I'm okay with any copyfree license, because it is in practice as close as you can get to opting out of the intellectual property system. However, I specifically use the UNLICENSE because it draws attention to the problems with copyright itself while also itself being copyfree. Specifically, the first sentence from unlicense.org reads:

The Unlicense is a template for disclaiming copyright monopoly interest in software you've written; in other words, it is a template for dedicating your software to the public domain.

Thus, there is a flair of activism involved in using the UNLICENSE. That's why I choose it over other copyfree licenses.

from Hacker News https://ift.tt/2JlctyL