Why you shouldn't use a lax license for your next free software program

Software freedom is about controlling your computing. This means having the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software.

We determine whether a program is free based on what kind of license it is under and there generally exist two kinds of free software licenses. A copyleft license, e.g., the GNU General Public License (GPL), or the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), requires all distributors of a program to keep that program free, as well as any derivative works based on changes made to it. Conversely, a lax license (e.g., various versions of the BSD license) allows distributors to not share the program or its modifications, thus denying downstream users control over their own computing.

To be clear, software under lax licenses is still free software, but clearly malicious and immoral schemes aimed at taking software freedom a way from users are allowed. For example, when someone receives a program under a lax license and adds any modifications, but distributes it in binary form only, maybe even under a nonfree license, users who want to use it in freedom are left on their own. If these users gather enough programming skills and time, and succeed to develop their own independent, free implementation of the modifications, they may (in a way) liberate the once-free modified program.

Sharing the code of programs under lax licenses is a moral act of good will, but not legally required. With a copylefted program, people can legally enforce copyleft by requesting the source code of modifications under a free license (please note that even the strongest copyleft licenses, the GNU GPL and the GNU AGPL, do not require sharing of code if it is only used privately).

We hope that there will always be individuals who are technologically savvy and dedicated enough to secure freedom, for themselves and the rest of the world. But, let's not forget that the majority of users are less skilled, and thus rely on the community to provide them with free software. For the majority of people, the solution to accessible freedom lies with the skills of a small community to duplicate the work of the distributors who chose not to provide downstream users with the source code in freedom.

The free software community already has more work cut out for it than there are community members with the necessary skills and time to do that work. Taxing the community even more with liberating a distribution of a previously free program should be avoided at all cost. Sharing software source code should be promoted and encouraged at all times.

Theft of user freedom is often bit-by bit, instead of a grand, dramatic swipe.

One or two programs under a lax license here or there might not be a problem, but there is a tipping point when considering the quantity, importance, and the interdependence of the programs involved. It is probably impossible to say for sure where this tipping point is exactly, but it is clear that the more people who choose lax instead of copyleft licenses, the closer we get to it. It also matters at which level such choices are made: a developer deciding to use a lax license for a simple, independent program probably affects the programs' users only, while the decision of a large and popular free software distribution to include software under lax licenses in the system's core usually affects the users of software, of the distribution, and may have a spill over effect on users of other distributions as well.

Usually, the bigger the effect, the more resources are necessary to liberate the affected programs should someone decide to pursue an immoral scheme allowed by lax licenses. If, for example, most of free software developers who could remedy the situation end up hired away by the same company that engages into the scheme, that could set the free software community back many years — remember the times when the GNU Project started? Free software building blocks of the whole OS had to be meticulously built, step by step.

Most of us would notice if someone attempted to steal user freedom from us in a single, overt move. Unfortunately, we are less observant of a creeping takeover. Such is made easier whenever a free software program is released under a lax license, instead of using a powerful copyleft license such as the GNU GPL. Opting for a program under a lax license instead of a copylefted implementation is a big win for appropriators eager to take more freedom from users.

"Cartoon Network robber hacking a laptop." 2018 by Vectortoons. This image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.