copyleft-next November 2012

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

10 participants
8 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

Numbering of first release
by Richard Fontana 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Should the first release of copyleft-next be designated with the version number 1.0, 0.1, 0.01, something else? I'm somewhat inclined to go with "0.01" (which still is suggestive of 'likely to see further improvement'). Incidentally, I am increasingly of the view that the version stability of (at least interesting) FLOSS (and free or quasi-free content) licenses is a flaw, and I am envisioning copyleft-next as a license that could rapidly evolve even when one only considers a series of official numbered releases. Most FLOSS licenses with numbered releases (and names) have begun with "1.0" (famous exceptions are the GNU LGPL and the GNU AGPL). Apparently there was an 0.5 release of the Common Public License that was applied to some software, so there is some limited precedent for having pre-1.0 numbered releases. - RF

6 9

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

Use of Gitorious and GitHub
by Richard Fontana 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Would anyone besides Bradley object (weakly or strongly) to my using GitHub as the apparent one true public source code repository for copyleft-next? (I have been mirroring [that's probably not even the correct concept here] commits to the Gitorious repository in my GitHub copyleft-next repository ever since using Gitorious for copyleft-next.) Having used Gitorious for several months now, I have to say that I don't like it. I note that Bradley has already proposed some changes to copyleft-next by attaching patches to mailing list posts in addition to Gitorious merge requests. This seems to prove that someone who strongly objects to GitHub can still actively participate in this project, at least if I reverse my current practice and consistently mirror the GitHub repository in the existing Gitorious repository (or some other public git repository location that Bradley would not object to). - RF

9 24

use of "shall"
by Luis Villa 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Attention conservation notice: minor drafting quibbling follows. Secs. 11.4 and 15 should probably be redrafted to remove shall. Shall should only be used under very specific circumstances- basically as a synonym for "has a duty to." There is a very extensive discussion of this on p. 22-30 of Ken Adams' Manual of Style for Contract Drafting [http://books.google.com/books?id=n7-jxMskU9MC&pg=PA22#v=onepage], and a summary at http://www.koncision.com/revisiting-use-of-shall-in-contract-drafting/ The following summarizes the position [from http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/11/18/shall-will-must-exchange-emails/ ]: "I recommend using [shall] to impose an obligation on the subject of the sentence, as in 'Acme shall purchase the Shares'. The initial test for disciplined use of shall is whether you can in your mind replace it with “has [or have] a duty to.” This simple test goes a long way towards restraining overuse of shall." Secs. 11.4 and 15 fail this test, and so probably shouldn't use "shall" as currently drafted: Sec. 11: "Your right to make copies necessarily incident to running Covered Works [have a duty to] never be terminated." Because I'm unclear on the purpose of 10.4 (see thread from some weeks ago), I can't offer advice on how to improve it. Sec. 15: "If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it [has a duty to] not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License..." shall -> will ("it will not affect...") "and reviewing courts [have a duty to] reform such provision to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable." This is not grammatically incorrect, but it's a little odd, since the courts have no duty here to do anything. :) Could use instead: "and We intend that reviewing courts should reform..." or simply "reviewing courts should reform". For slightly more discussion of exactly this sort of clause, see: http://www.koncision.com/koncisions-severability-provision-now-featuring-la… and http://www.koncision.com/feast-your-eyes-on-koncisions-new-severability-pro… Two more cents- Luis

4 7

Release Mechanics
by Stephen Michael Kellat 22 Nov '12

22 Nov '12

This is to follow-up what I hinted at on Identica. As to releasing copyleft-next, this is a very good week to bury news of any sort. I would suggest and propose that any initial release be done at a press availability so that members of the tech press, such that they are, can be physically present to ask questions. We already saw coverage that was less than optimal at the start of this effort that I intervened to try to get corrected over at The Register. Having a press availability, this is part of the normal mechanics of doing things. I would suggest holding an event in New York City in a few weeks or so and inviting folks from CNET, The Register, Ars Technica, and such other outlets as may be determined appropriate to come. The location should be neutral ground. Bureaus for most of the mentioned outlets are either in Boston or NYC and with northeast regional transit infrastructure being superior in some respects to that found elsewhere in the United States this would not be as great of an imposition as, for example, asking them to attend an event here in northeast Ohio's Ashtabula County. To do this, a few things would need to be nailed down: 1. A date 2. A time 3. A place 4. Who shall be available to the press To members of the media, commit logs and e-mail archives sometimes are not enough to be able to understand a subject to be able to write a story. Sometimes questions have to be asked and answered. To help gain knowledge throughout the community at large, the media plays an important role in the existence of something like copyleft-next. I'll tentatively commit to baking some cookies and bringing them across two state lines perhaps for such an invited press availability if somebody else can bring coffee. :-) As for numbering, I'd follow Gentoo/Ubuntu mechanics and go with something akin to 2012.12 perhaps. Stephen Michael Kellat Press Flack for the Music Along the River Festival near Ohio's Grand River Head Writer, Erie Looking Productions Ashtabula Township, OH

1 0

Line length standardization?
by Ben Cotton 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

It came up at one point in the (essentially defunct) IRC channel with no real resolution, so I want to bring this up again before a release is made: Do we want to set a standard line length for the license text and edit the current draft to meet that length? It will make for a stupidly ugly diff, but it might make the final product look more polished. -- Ben Cotton

2 2

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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next November 2012