copyleft-next December 2012

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

10 participants
9 discussions

Fwd: Re: Modify Corresponding Source definition, mainly to delete 'install and run'. (14249c2)
by Richard Fontana 31 Dec '12

31 Dec '12

Posting GitHub comment to list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [copyleft-next] Modify Corresponding Source definition, mainly to delete 'install and run'. (14249c2) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:21:02 -0800 From: Engelnyst <notifications(a)github.com> Reply-To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <reply+c-2367229-a0900572203011e12b1ba3ee040e42370ca5fe7d-1179636(a)reply.github.com> To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <copyleft-next(a)noreply.github.com> CC: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> > (iii) all relevant interface definition files; Is this intended to mean: the API? --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/commit/14249c22871a58cf781a…

5 13

Fwd: Re: Revised Severability provision following list discussion initiated by tieguy. (5129dea)
by Richard Fontana 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

Posting GitHub comment to list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [copyleft-next] Revised Severability provision following list discussion initiated by tieguy. (5129dea) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:26:58 -0800 From: Engelnyst <notifications(a)github.com> Reply-To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <reply+c-2367238-b1dbcafcca3643d72129393d43090f804a7b399e-1179636(a)reply.github.com> To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <copyleft-next(a)noreply.github.com> CC: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> FWIW: when I read 'is to be reformed' I asked immediately "by who". (the entire license, statement of project position, something else?) The main question I would personally have, here, is: is the statement of the project, its clarifications, its statement of intended meaning or limits of applicability, enough to choose between interpretations of a clause? I don't have a better suggestion though, and from the diff and mailing list discussion IMHO it's a better phrase than the former. However if the intention is to limit the "by who" strictly to courts of law, then perhaps it would be better to state that somehow... Obligatory note: IANAL. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/commit/5129dea218c3a189accf…

1 0

Fwd: Re: Encourage the involvement of Free Software developers and contributors. (007ec15)
by Richard Fontana 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

Posting GitHub comment to list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [copyleft-next] Encourage the involvement of Free Software developers and contributors. (007ec15) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:54:02 -0800 From: Engelnyst <notifications(a)github.com> Reply-To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <reply+c-2367204-b5f657cbd9ac666f1119dc39043012c0828c3c7a-1179636(a)reply.github.com> To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <copyleft-next(a)noreply.github.com> FWIW, I think this is a good idea and it goes hand in hand with making this copy (at least) available on github as well. It might succeed or not, but that's always true. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/commit/007ec15a089d34e80862…

1 0

Fwd: Re: Revise Proprietary Relicensing poison pill. (021eb72)
by Richard Fontana 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

Posting GitHub comment to list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [copyleft-next] Revise Proprietary Relicensing poison pill. (021eb72) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:35:05 -0800 From: Engelnyst <notifications(a)github.com> Reply-To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <reply+c-2367179-ec89f72124a412582d6abdd7fb73f292aacf92ca-1179636(a)reply.github.com> To: richardfontana/copyleft-next <copyleft-next(a)noreply.github.com> CC: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> I'm very, very glad to see this reference of the OSI approval. It is the best usable criterium I can think of, to distinguish a license from 'proprietary licensing'. * Simplicity argument is fair and reasonable IMHO: indeed it is straightforward to know what falls under the OSI list, and tbh that is very useful to developers. Not everyone will or can take the time to figure out on their own what may fall under a definition like OSD, FSD or Debian (except to use those definitions for understanding, context, argumentation in particular cases). * If there are doubtful licenses on the OSI list, personally I don't see that as a downside of any significance. One can very well take the path to publicly discourage or not encourage or express doubt on them, rather than make the whole definition in this license legally too restricted or confusing. That risks to be unusable. * I should say, I do think that a relying on a definition has its strenghts however, besides the risks. > not to mention the offense the FSF is likely to take This is a purely political argument, one that smells very bad. I've been occasionally following development of copyleft-next, with the hope that it will perhaps define copyleft without compromises which, lets say, have no good reasons to be made. Not trying to open an argument on that side, lets just say that IMHO a reasonable enough criterium (even if perhaps no criterium is perfect) is preferable to compromises with others 'offenses'. > It occurs to me that this Proprietary Relicensing provision is the one part of copyleft-next that is in danger of taking on certain GPLv3-ish stylistic qualities that are undesirable generally for copyleft-next. I am not sure how to solve that without making the provision significantly longer or removing it from copyleft-next. I don't like either of those options. What do you mean by "certain GPLv3-ish stylistic qualities that are undesirable generally for copyleft-next"? A quick pointer to where I can find details will be enough. Thank you. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/commit/021eb728c70b81ffb73f…

1 0

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

fixing the record on my role [was Re: [MERGE REQUEST] restore "install and run" text (was Re: app-stores and copyleft-next)]
by Luis Villa 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote: > On 12/03/2012 03:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> TL;DR: Fontana, please accept the merge request at >> https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/25 >> to restore the "install and run" wording until such time as >> community consensus is reached regarding a compromise of which >> users should actually get the freedom to install modified >> versions. > [...] >> I'm sorry to see that Richard has removed it at Luis' behest without any >> discussion about the issue. > > I didn't remove it at Luis's behest - he never suggested that it be > removed (AFAICR). I'd be happy to have further discussion about the issue. > For the record, I'll confirm Richard's recollection: at no point (publicly or privately, implicitly or explicitly) did I request this removal. If anything, my emails on the subject were supportive of inclusion: * My previous draft of this language, sent to this list on Aug. 5th, aimed to remove verbs I felt were superfluous or ill-defined but specifically retained "run" and "install." * My recent email described platforms that allow running and installation of modified versions as "rights-respecting" and referred to the text in question as "anti-lockdown." Tangentially, but also for the record: I am participating in this list purely on my own time and out of my own interests. Neither my clients nor my firm are paying me to be here, nor have I discussed copyleft-next with them. Should a client ever ask me to take an advocacy position here, I would disclose that I was acting on behalf of a client, and any email relating to such advocacy would come from villalu(a)gtlaw.com. Luis

1 0

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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next December 2012