Re: GPL is more than copying conditions

[Bruno Haible]

Per Bothner wrote:
> "People who are already familar with the Free Software movement and
> its traditions will look for a file named COPYING when checking the license."
> 
> For everybody else, I'm pretty sure that is not the case.
> 
> "COPYING" is not even mentioned in the relevant GitHub page:
> https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository

But when you follow in this page the link to choosealicense.com, then click
on the first tile, you read:
  "To find its license, look for a file called LICENSE or COPYING, and skim
   the project’s README."

> You may consider GitHub anathema, but it is the biggest player when hosting 
> Free Software

You are hitting the nail on the head: The habits of the Free Software
and Open Source community, nowadays, are largely shaped by a company that
implicitly suggests to the developers that
  - it's OK to rely on web applications by one single vendor for the
    essentials of your work,
  - it's OK for developers to hide their email addresses, so that they
    can only be contacted through said web applications,
  - it's OK to collect software under various licenses, including the GPL,
    stuff that into a neural network, and redistribute the resulting AI
    program,
  - a license should always be stored in a file named LICENSE.

Should we surrender to these habits?

I think the pages under https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.en.html
are a testimony that we should instead educate the people about Free Software,
when they get in touch with us.

Naming the file 'COPYING' instead of 'LICENSE' is part of that journey.

Bruno