copyleft-next October 2012

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

8 participants
12 discussions

has anyone done a proof of concept permissive.next based?
by Luis Villa 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Just curious if anyone has thought about, looked at, or drafted a permissive license based on the structure, organization, and terminology of copyleft.next.

7 39

Update 2012-08-02
by Richard Fontana 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Here's an update of what's been going on with the copyleft-next draft. Deletion of dl-supp =================== The biggest change of the past week was my deletion of "dl-supp". In an earlier commit, I moved the "anti-Tivoization" provisions derived from the second part of GPLv3 section 6 into a supplementary document which an initial licensor could place on a new program. I now see no point in even having it as a supplement. Thus, copyleft-next has no anti-Tivoization provisions, and so the patch originally proposed by mcgrof (see <https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/12/401> ) has now effectively been applied. A lot of careful thought and discussion went into the corresponding provisions of GPLv3. They represent the result of a difficult compromise, and are motivated by policy goals for which I have deep personal sympathy. I contend that they are among the best-drafted parts of that license. The policy concern about locked-down consumer devices with effectively nonmodifiable GPL-licensed software has become more relevant in the years since those provisions were drafted. Yet, with respect to GPLv3, it has been my own intuition that few projects consciously choosing that license do so because of the anti-Tivoization provisions. I do not have the sense that the inclusion of these provisions in GPLv3 has had the effect of increasing users' freedom to modify software in consumer devices they own. To the contrary, it appears if anything to have motivated risk-averse companies to avoid use of GPLv3-licensed software. That is not dispositive but it is relevant. (There may be evidence to the contrary that I am unaware of.) I'm open to being convinced that this deletion should be reverted, but if no one successfully convinces me, it is likely to stay deleted. Part of what influences me is the availability of outbound (A)GPLv3 compatibility. As with the more obscure 'contractor' provision of GPLv3 section 2, those who care strongly about these provisions will be able to incorporate copyleft-next code in GPLv3-licensed works. Deletion of first part of anti-anti-circumvention provision =========================================================== While I currently continue to feel it is worthwhile for copyleft-next to explicitly address anti-circumvention law, I no longer consider the first paragraph of what was GPLv3 section 3 to be desirable. The basic idea here was the hope that courts would be influenced by a general declaration by the licensor that covered works are, in some sense fundamental to the license, not 'effective technological protection measures'. There is no known history of use of this provision by those defending against invocation of anti-circumvention law. This strikes me as being an inherently weak provision, but, the less weak one assumes it is, the more problematic it becomes from a free software perspective, since it approaches something like a field of use restriction. That certainly is not what the FSF intended, but that lack of intent does not make the discomfort go away. The reason for effectively two (or three, depending on how you look at it) anti-anti-circumvention provisions had to do with concerns about differences between US and EU approaches to anti-circumvention law. I consider it better to come up with one provision suitable for major jurisdictions in which the license is likely to be granted. A modification of the second part of what was GPLv3 section 3 is a better basis for such a provision. Further changes to termination ============================== In response to discussion on the mailing list, I have changed the EPL-inspired "reasonable time period" cure to a 30-day cure. I have also eliminated the relatively complex "automatic termination -> provisional automatic reinstatement -> permanent automatic reinstatement' feature which was originally added to GPLv3 section 8 in the final draft. I have explained this in a posting to this list made earlier today. Deletion of liberty-or-death example ==================================== This is a noteworthy change. If people think that we need the example given in GPLv3 section 12, let me know. - Richard

7 32

Compatibility with Eclipse Public License.
by Tom Marble 20 Nov '12

20 Nov '12

All: As Richard brought to my attention on identi.ca [0] there appears to be interest in making CLN (copyleft.next) compatible with EPL [1]. This is certainly an interesting goal and I'm wondering how the to comply with EPL in a CLN combined work? Historically this seems to have been "impossible" with GPL. AFAICT the incompatibility rises from the EPL choice of venue [2] which makes EPL not GPL compatible. Interestingly there seem to be claims that GPL is not EPL compatible [3][4][5] yet they all seem to hinge reflexively on the former case. Thus if EPL is CLN compatible then is there any stronger assertion we can make to assure that CLN is EPL compatible (specifically that a combined work under CLN is possible)? If such a solution is found it would give CLN another powerful advantage (along with deflating Proprietary Relicensing [6]) to combat the EPL reflexive assertions and (optionally via ws-supp) go further by copylefting network services (so-called "Web Services"). This would seem to be significant as it is not clear a developer today could deploy an EPL work (e.g. Clojure) combined with copyleft network services (e.g. under AGPLv3+) while complying with both licenses. At the risk of adding a second issue to this mail I am concerned that the "at no charge" qualification in ws-supp creates a loophole for additional albeit gratis conditions. Especially in the land of network services we are becoming increasingly aware of draconian and even abusive "Terms of Service" in exchange for gratis offerings. CLN seems to want to make conveying Software Freedom unconditional. Respectfully, --Tom [0] https://identi.ca/notice/95887462 [1] https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/license-draf… [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL [3] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE [4] https://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#Compatibility [6] https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/license-draf…

6 23

On vacation for about a week
by Richard Fontana 21 Oct '12

21 Oct '12

There are a few outstanding merge requests that I hoped to attend to after returning from a couple of weeks dominated by conference-related travel, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get to them before starting another trip this week. I probably will have only sporadic access to email from October 24th through November 1st. - RF

1 0

trying to grok Sec. 10.4
by Luis Villa 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Pursuant to an email and pull request I'd like to send about the use of "shall", I'm trying to grok Sec. 10.4. Is the idea to remedy the line of cases that suggest that licensees are not protected by 17 USC 117, and particularly 17 USC 117(a)(1)? (See Part 3 of http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9093856475999715707 for something of a summary of these cases.) Or is it something else? If so, what is it? [git blame is not useful here because of section renumberings and the like, and my perusal of the commit history hasn't found the actual commit that added this text. Apologies if the commit message provided useful context.] Thanks- Luis

2 2

HBR Cure: discussion on "official releases" of copyleft-next
by Bradley M. Kuhn 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

An HBR cure summary follows: Over dinner yesterday evening, Fontana and I discussed his desire to do a 0.01 release of the license. I argued that "releasing" the license will signal that the license is usable, and it's not in a usable state yet, and therefore should not be "released" in this way. Fontana pointed out that the release would still say: "THIS IS A DRAFT. DO NOT USE AS A LICENSE." at the top, and that he did *not* want people to use the release. I responded that the only point then in a numbered release was to get press coverage. Fontana argued he didn't really want more press coverage for copyleft-next. I then speculated that Fontana perhaps wanted comments from people who wouldn't otherwise participate in a mailing list, or follow the git master branch, or otherwise get involved until they saw a release. Fontana said that was nearly it exactly: indicating that he viewed the "numbered releases" of copyleft-next as similar to what the GPLv3 called its "discussion drafts". I teased Fontana a bit about imitating a process that he is trying to improve, and then pointed out that what he was saying was basically that he wanted to invite feedback from people who can't otherwise participate in the project in the way it's designed. I even argued that perhaps this was a "spirit violation" of the HBR, since the HBR is precisely designed to keep away lawyers and "policy wonks" that don't understand enough about Free Software culture to join a mailing list, or at the very least, read a git log and/or clone a git repository to see the current draft. I pointed out that I believed the main value of copyleft-next as a license design project is that it keeps away that type of person who were the primary corrupting force for GPLv3. I then asked if there were people Fontana wanted to comment on copyleft-next that weren't *here* already, Fontana didn't really answer, but I did point out that if such a person exists, it's easy enough to send them a personal invitation to clone the repository and join the list. I believe this fully summarizes the only copyleft-next part of the discussion and cures the HBR violation per HBR §2 (I am just now proposing a pull request to number the HBR sections :). Fontana, if I've misrepresented any part of the conversation, please correct. -- -- bkuhn

3 4

Update
by Richard Fontana 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

Here's an update on some of what's been going on in the copyleft-next draft since a week ago. One of the more significant changes is a substantial simplification of the termination section. For what are best summarized as "historical reasons", GPLv3 has effectively two cure provisions (interestingly, MPL 2.0's drafters chose to adapt much of the GPLv3 language). I've replaced it with one cure period and I just refer to a "reasonable time period" (cf. EPL 1.0) instead of the 30-day and 60-day periods of GPLv3. I'm not convinced that it's better not to have a fixed time period for cure, though I am convinced that a 30-day and a 60-day provision are not both needed. The structure of having automatic termination coupled with automatic reinstatement upon cure is preserved. This is unusual but it reflected concerns expressed by those active in GPL enforcement in Germany that automatic termination facilitated enforcement under German law. I have added a 'severability clause' which is a common feature of contracts and is found in a number of FLOSS licenses. The FSF opted not to have a severability clause in GPLv3 out of concern that it could lead to unpredictable judge-made alterations of the GPL that might frustrate basic policy objectives. The advantages of a severability clause seem to me to outweigh this concern. (GPLv2 has a limited severability clause in its 'liberty-or-death' section, which was removed from GPLv3.) I added a section at the beginning giving a 'general rule of construction', in some ways replacing one function the GPL Preamble ought to serve. The language here was adapted from the Preamble of Allison Randal's experimental short GPLv3 alternative which she drafted in 2007. I deleted the lengthy yet narrow provision I call, for lack of a better name, "child of downstream shielding" (GPLv3 section 11 paragraph 5). This is actually a very important provision for historical reasons, as a guide to understanding the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but I believe it has proven to have little value in the license itself. With this deletion, note that all the patent-related provisions of GPLv3 are now gone except for the Licensor's patent license grant (which has been restructured but, at least as I conceive it currently, is not different in scope from the patent license grant of GPLv3). Sadly, vanilla copyleft-next is still over 100 lines longer than the Apache License 2.0, but great progress has been made. :-) - Richard

5 14

Harvey Birdman cure
by Richard Fontana 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

Today I had a telephone conversation with Bradley Kuhn in which I noted that copyleft-next (vanilla version) was nearly ready for its 0.01 release, the main obstacle being that the definition of "System Library" remains undone. I suggested (though I wasn't quite this specific) that an explicit GPL-style system library carveout from "Corresponding Source" (or from "Derived Work") might not even be necessary. - RF

2 2

Update 2012-08-08
by Richard Fontana 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

Here's an update of what's been going on with the copyleft-next draft during the past week: While Bradley Kuhn's attempted resurrection of the anti-lockdown provisions has failed, I incorporated some of his suggestions for improvements in the definition of Corresponding Source (including a recent change that addresses the 'know-how' issue). I have put a "FIXME" for the System Libraries definition, as, to be frank, all definitions of this exception in all versions of the GNU GPL are suboptimal and if we wish to preserve this concept at all we need to start over. (Query whether it's actually needed anyway.) I deleted the 'rule of construction' in response to some criticism from Luis Villa, but I might restore it in response to some of his further comments on said deletion. I deleted the "inbound=outbound" provision adapted from the Apache License 2.0. I think this is difficult to draft *well* and may not be worth the effort. In many cases, contributions to a hypothetical copyleft-next project will be themselves 'Derived Works', and I have argued publicly in various talks and writings that FLOSS legal culture features the inbound=outbound custom anyway. The patent license grant is arguably broadened from GPLv3 by referring to 'Covered Works', although perhaps this is best seen as a clarification. In this I was influenced by the patent license grant in the Microsoft Public License. I considered and discussed on the mailing list a provision that would attempt to achieve compatibility with EPL. I ended up not including this, though I am still open to the idea. The anti-anti-circumvention waiver/disclaimer is clarified as something that the initial licensor and all 'Distributors' make. At least with the deletion of the first part of what was GPLv3 section 3, it was not clear that the initial licensor was making the same waiver/disclaimer as downstream parties. I applied Luis Villa's proposal to delete the written offer option from the object code distribution section. No one came to its defense on the mailing list. It is gone! In the past few days I've been experimenting, probably too much, with rearranging sections and subsections and typographical presentation and such. I deleted the anti-patent-litigation condition descended from the end of GPLv3 section 10 and replaced it with a provision closely modeled on the patent peace provision in MPL 2.0 (and put it in the termination section). I did so despite having some concerns about the breadth of the MPL provision. The old liberty-or-death provision is now reduced to one sentence in the no-further-restrictions section. I removed the ancient clarification that you can charge for distribution or services, as hopefully obvious by now. Apart from the draft, I made some modifications to the Harvey Birdman Rule (as it is again known). copyleft-next (ignoring ws-supp) continues to shrink: it is now at 270 lines and 1620 words. Of course, that's with the placeholder System Libraries definition.For comparison, the Apache License 2.0 is 202 lines and 1581 words. The Object Code Distribution section makes up about one quarter of copyleft-next - Richard

2 3

What do copyleft licenses gain from an acceptance clause?
by Bradley M. Kuhn 12 Oct '12

12 Oct '12

The following is a Harvey Birdman Rule conversation disclosure. At LinuxCon, Fontana and I were discussing his change in: commit 5823daf41d2bbb757e49b87b8e697fd793317019 Author: Richard Fontana <fontana2012(a)gmail.com> Date: 2012-07-05 18:44:45 -0400 Wherein he removes the acceptance clause entirely from copyleft-next. I argued briefly that perhaps the acceptance clause was useful, because it allowed a contract claim to more easily be brought when copyright infringement has occurred (basically as a secondary cause of action and/or legal claim, which could be argued in the alternative of copyright infringement). Ultimately, I agreed with Fontana that perhaps the acceptance provision isn't terribly useful from an enforcement perspective, because copyright law gives us all the tools we need, and we don't get specifically an additional enforcement claim simply because the entity engaged in activities governed by copyright law is reminded of their obligations and that they have no other license. However, this question probably deserves more study, as if there is some additional benefit that GPLv2 and GPLv3 families of licenses are getting from having an acceptance clause, then one should also be present in copyleft-next. In particular, Fontana notes that it might be possible that the acceptance clause is doing something different entirely unrelated to bringing forth a contract claim. -- -- bkuhn

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next October 2012