While in the traditional software production sector the private (economic) driver to use an existing software is those of modifying it and licensing the modified software, in the academic context the economic/private driver to modify a software is rather to use it to publish papers.
As it is unethical that you use a GPL software, modify it and pursuit your private interest licensing it keeping your modifications as closed source, I feel unethical that in the academic sector you can use GPL software, make modifications for your own private interest (making publications) and not give them back to the community.
I hence proposed for my software a sort of academic licence that state as follow. Please consider that I still let people to use the software for whatever scope they want, just to release the code they derive from it if they make publications with it.
This software is covered by the above GNU GPL version 3 licence with the
following exceptions that prevail over the GNU GPL version:
#1: Any public communication (not limited: working papers, articles, technical reports) of results derived from running a modified version of this software requires the publication of the source code corresponding to such modifications; #2: Publishing communications derived from unmodified versions of the software on which new data is applied doesn't require the publication of the data; #3: Any modifications must be released under the same licence of the unmodified software, including these exceptions. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007
[...etc..]
Would such licence be legal (and would still allow the usage of GPL components) ? Would it be "ethic" (and would still be considered "free software") ?
Regards, Antonello
↪ 2015-09-30 Wed 16:33, Antonello Lobianco (not reply) blackhole@lobianco.org:
While in the traditional software production sector the private (economic) driver to use an existing software is those of modifying it and licensing the modified software, in the academic context the economic/private driver to modify a software is rather to use it to publish papers.
As it is unethical that you use a GPL software, modify it and pursuit your private interest licensing it keeping your modifications as closed source,
Why is it unethical? Your actions are not having any impact on other people's freedoms when you keep GPL software modifications private without such software being used by anyone else.
I feel unethical that in the academic sector you can use GPL software, make modifications for your own private interest (making publications) and not give them back to the community.
Sharing should be allowed, but not mandatory. That's how it is in free software anyway.
[...]
This software is covered by the above GNU GPL version 3 licence with the
following exceptions that prevail over the GNU GPL version:
(Technically, this isn't an “exception”, but an additional restriction)
#1: Any public communication (not limited: working papers, articles, technical reports) of results derived from running a modified version of this software requires the publication of the source code corresponding to such modifications; #2: Publishing communications derived from unmodified versions of the software on which new data is applied doesn't require the publication of the data; #3: Any modifications must be released under the same licence of the unmodified software, including these exceptions. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007
[...etc..]
Would such licence be legal (and would still allow the usage of GPL components) ?
That depends on the applicable law and in which jurisdiction it is applied.
Also, whether the text you're submitting would actually be enforceable is far from clear (for instance, the use of “derived from” suggests a copyright notion of derivative work which would certainly by alomst impossible to achieve thus rendering the addition useless).
Would it be "ethic" (and would still be considered "free software") ?
Putting ethics aside for a moment, I believe that such an addition would render the result non-free software as it would prevent you from privately modifying software for purposes of “public communication”, thus breaching a combination of Freedom0 and Freedom1 from GNU's definition¹.
1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Also, this addition would certainly create licensing incompatibilities with GPL software, which would be very inconvenient and is thus absolutely not desirable.
Please don't try to make this license or release your software under such terms.
El 30 de septiembre de 2015 15:59:58 GMT+01:00, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org escribió:
↪ 2015-09-30 Wed 16:33, Antonello Lobianco (not reply) blackhole@lobianco.org:
While in the traditional software production sector the private
(economic)
driver to use an existing software is those of modifying it and
licensing
the modified software, in the academic context the economic/private
driver
to modify a software is rather to use it to publish papers.
As it is unethical that you use a GPL software, modify it and pursuit
your
private interest licensing it keeping your modifications as closed
source,
Why is it unethical? Your actions are not having any impact on other people's freedoms when you keep GPL software modifications private without such software being used by anyone else.
I feel unethical that in the academic sector you can use GPL
software, make
modifications for your own private interest (making publications) and
not
give them back to the community.
Sharing should be allowed, but not mandatory. That's how it is in free software anyway.
[...]
From what I understand this would be unethically scientifically. In my humble opinion papers are not published for personal gain, that might be a side advantage (extra funding, higher h-index,...). Scientists publish in order for others to peer review and hopefully reproduce their work. Modified sourcecode should be provided as an attachment or explained within the paper and the original code referenced. Of course as a consecuence of this, I feel scientists should avoid propietary software at all costs, so this might be wishful thinking rather than anything else.
This software is covered by the above GNU GPL version 3 licence with
the
following exceptions that prevail over the GNU GPL version:
(Technically, this isn't an “exception”, but an additional restriction)
#1: Any public communication (not limited: working papers,
articles,
technical reports) of results derived from running a modified
version of
this software requires the publication of the source code
corresponding to
such modifications; #2: Publishing communications derived from unmodified versions of
the
software on which new data is applied doesn't require the
publication of
the data; #3: Any modifications must be released under the same licence of
the
unmodified software, including these exceptions. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007
[...etc..]
Would such licence be legal (and would still allow the usage of GPL components) ?
That depends on the applicable law and in which jurisdiction it is applied.
Also, whether the text you're submitting would actually be enforceable is far from clear (for instance, the use of “derived from” suggests a copyright notion of derivative work which would certainly by alomst impossible to achieve thus rendering the addition useless).
Would it be "ethic" (and would still be considered "free software") ?
Putting ethics aside for a moment, I believe that such an addition would render the result non-free software as it would prevent you from privately modifying software for purposes of “public communication”, thus breaching a combination of Freedom0 and Freedom1 from GNU's definition¹.
Also, this addition would certainly create licensing incompatibilities with GPL software, which would be very inconvenient and is thus absolutely not desirable.
Please don't try to make this license or release your software under such terms.