copyleft-next:bkuhn-copyleft-next-proposals.git
5 years agoReincorporate important verbs needed to clarify Corresponding Source definition
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:32:05 +0000 (11:32 +0200)]
Reincorporate important verbs needed to clarify Corresponding Source definition

Many of my various proposed improvements to Corresponding Source
definition were rejected, and the Corresponding Source definition has
drifted considerable since then.

This change reincorporate important verbs and nouns into the definition
that are necessary to avoid arguments by violators that they can provide
inadequate build/install scripts and/or instructions.

5 years ago"skilled developer" shouldn't be mandated.
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:31:01 +0000 (11:31 +0200)]
"skilled developer" shouldn't be mandated.

Having "skilled developer" in there is just a pure give away to
violators.  They'll argue that our developers aren't skilled enough, so
inadequate CCS is acceptable.  There is no way that we should just give
that away to them.

5 years ago"information" should also be included alongside "instructions"
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:29:49 +0000 (11:29 +0200)]
"information" should also be included alongside "instructions"

Again, violators could easily say that what they have are not instructions
per se, even if we as copyleft enforcers would disagree.  Adding
"information" here makes it much more general than just scripts and
instructions.

For good measure, an "and/or" is put in place as well.

5 years ago"specific" instructions is, well, "too specific".
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:28:37 +0000 (11:28 +0200)]
"specific" instructions is, well, "too specific".

I don't like "specific" here.  I see lots of CCS that has "vague
instructions" which are nonetheless helpful.  We don't want violators to
be able to say: "Well, the instructions we have aren't very specific, so
we don't have to provide them."  If all they have are vague instructions,
they must nonetheless provide what they know and what they've got.

Violators *will* argue this if we don't remove "specific".  So, it's
herein removed.

5 years ago"all of" is probably not needed either.
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:26:53 +0000 (11:26 +0200)]
"all of" is probably not needed either.

If you don't say "all of" the Covered Work, and just say "the Covered
Work", doesn't it mean "all of" it.  How could it not mean all of it?

5 years agoDon't limit Corresponding Source to only have meaning when Covered Work is Distributed.
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:25:38 +0000 (11:25 +0200)]
Don't limit Corresponding Source to only have meaning when Covered Work is Distributed.

There is no reason in my view for Corresponding Source to only have
meaning when a Covered Work is Distributed.  Therefore, remove the word
"Distributed" from the Corresponding Source definition.

5 years ago"parts" is an unnecessary word here.
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:24:50 +0000 (11:24 +0200)]
"parts" is an unnecessary word here.

I don't see a specific difference between "all parts of the Covered Work"
and "all of the Covered Work".  Since Covered Work is a defined term, if
anything, "parts" should be included in its definition.  However, I tend
to believe it just isn't necessary.  "all of the Covered Work" means "all
parts".  How could it not?

5 years agoAdd MPL 2.0-style conspicuousness to warranty and liability disclaimers.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 01:17:40 +0000 (21:17 -0400)]
Add MPL 2.0-style conspicuousness to warranty and liability disclaimers.

5 years agoFixed typo.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 20 Sep 2012 01:49:48 +0000 (21:49 -0400)]
Fixed typo.

5 years agoReplace undefined 'System Library' with amended 'Separate Work' definition.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 20 Sep 2012 01:38:17 +0000 (21:38 -0400)]
Replace undefined 'System Library' with amended 'Separate Work' definition.

'Source Code' and 'Object Code' definitions are moved up to section 0.

This then enables simplification of section 8. It now begins with the
definition of Corresponding Source; the definitions of 'Product' and
'Minimum Period' are rolled into subpart a.

5 years agolisting GPLv3 when GPLv2 or later listed is redundant
Mike Linksvayer [Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:47:15 +0000 (15:47 -0700)]
listing GPLv3 when GPLv2 or later listed is redundant

5 years agoonly this version must be explicit, otherwise allow later versions
Mike Linksvayer [Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:43:36 +0000 (15:43 -0700)]
only this version must be explicit, otherwise allow later versions

5 years agoAdopt MPL2 relaxation of license inclusion requirement.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 7 Sep 2012 03:14:43 +0000 (23:14 -0400)]
Adopt MPL2 relaxation of license inclusion requirement.

This change was motivated by some recent discussion on the OSI
license-discuss mailing list.

5 years agoDelete "(including negligence from liability limitation.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Sep 2012 03:59:18 +0000 (23:59 -0400)]
Delete "(including negligence from liability limitation.

Justification: it is already obvious that negligence is a form of
tort. If there is some legal value in making the inclusion of
negligence explicit, we can revisit this change.

5 years agoDelete sentence from no-warranty section.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Sep 2012 03:46:12 +0000 (23:46 -0400)]
Delete sentence from no-warranty section.

The sentence "You may have additional rights under applicable law
which this License cannot change." is deleted. This was adapted from
no-warranty provisions in certain Microsoft licenses. The deletion is
justified by the fact that it merely states and at most provides
notice of a legal truism. If there is some significant legal benefit
to doing so, we can restore it.

5 years agoDeleted OSI OSD reference from Proprietary-Relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 03:24:22 +0000 (23:24 -0400)]
Deleted OSI OSD reference from Proprietary-Relicensing section.

This change is influenced by my recent LinuxCon talk in which I argued
that the OSI's Open Source Definition is rather unsuitable as a
normative definition of open source given its peculiar historical
roots in the mid-1990s concerns of Debian for its downstream
commercial redistributors.

5 years agoRemove GPLv3-derived redundancy from Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 03:12:36 +0000 (23:12 -0400)]
Remove GPLv3-derived redundancy from Corresponding Source definition.

I do not understand why it ought to be necessary to speak of "shared
libraries and dynamically linked subprograms" and assume it is
sufficient to speak of "shared libraries".

5 years agoMove 'System Library' definition (still undefined) to sec. 0.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 03:04:15 +0000 (23:04 -0400)]
Move 'System Library' definition (still undefined) to sec. 0.

5 years agoImprove Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 02:51:55 +0000 (22:51 -0400)]
Improve Corresponding Source definition.

The main part of this change is to replace the expansive set of verbs
used in the initial part of the definition of 'Corresponding Source'
(similar to the corresponding definition in GPLv3) with something more
like the definition used in GPLv2 section 3.

5 years ago"relicense" in section 9 -> "Distribute"
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:50:07 +0000 (21:50 -0400)]
"relicense" in section 9 -> "Distribute"

'Relicense' may not be sufficiently precise to interpreters of the
license who are well outside of FLOSS legal culture. The defined term
'Distribute' is a good substitute.

5 years agoMinor changes to termination section.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:46:01 +0000 (21:46 -0400)]
Minor changes to termination section.

5 years agoClarify in 'later license versions' mere inclusion of license document is not specifi...
Richard Fontana [Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:38:04 +0000 (21:38 -0400)]
Clarify in 'later license versions' mere inclusion of license document is not specification of the corresponding license version.

5 years agoHarvey Birdman Rule should clearly state archives may be incomplete & aren't mandatory. archiving-not-mandatory-under-birdman
Bradley M. Kuhn [Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:56:02 +0000 (16:56 -0700)]
Harvey Birdman Rule should clearly state archives may be incomplete & aren't mandatory.

Based on IRL discussion with Fontana, it seems that Harvey Birdman
Rule (HBR) might be misleading regarding archiving of mailing lists.  For
example, the current copyleft-next list uses GNU Mailman, which respects
X-No-Archive: yes, so even there some posts will sometimes not be publicly
archived.

Thus, the archives may not be complete.  However, there is no need for HBR
to mandate ignoring of "X-No-Archive: yes", nor should HBR add burden to
hosters of public discussion to keep perfect archives.

5 years agoRevise proprietary relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:22:52 +0000 (01:22 -0400)]
Revise proprietary relicensing section.

Deleted 'for commercial gain' limitation, in response to criticism
from Luis Villa and Mike Linksvayer. Added OSI OSD as basis for
exclusion from proprietary license category.

5 years agoChange Later License Versions to GPLv2-like approach.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:20:46 +0000 (00:20 -0400)]
Change Later License Versions to GPLv2-like approach.

5 years agoClarify and update ws-supp.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:52:25 +0000 (12:52 -0400)]
Clarify and update ws-supp.

5 years agoTweak introductory license grant language.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:03:20 +0000 (01:03 -0400)]
Tweak introductory license grant language.

5 years agoTweak initial subsection of termination provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:55:27 +0000 (00:55 -0400)]
Tweak initial subsection of termination provision.

5 years agoDelete 'Poison Pill' from Proprietary-Relicensing section title.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:24:27 +0000 (00:24 -0400)]
Delete 'Poison Pill' from Proprietary-Relicensing section title.

As far as I can tell, a generalized use of 'poison pill' in the
suggested manner is nonstandard.

5 years agoRevert part of previous change to poison pill provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:54:08 +0000 (23:54 -0400)]
Revert part of previous change to poison pill provision.

The issue here is, in a sense, one of proof from the licensee's
perspective. How will the licensee know whether the proprietary
commercial version really would be a 'Covered Work had you prepared
it'? Hence my introduction of language of "reasonable belief" in the
previous commit. However, I now think it is preferable to use more
absolute language, to ensure adequate deterrence without
unintended overdeterrence.

5 years agoMinor fix to section 4.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:51:37 +0000 (23:51 -0400)]
Minor fix to section 4.

5 years agoClarify Proprietary-Relicensing Poison Pill provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:48:48 +0000 (23:48 -0400)]
Clarify Proprietary-Relicensing Poison Pill provision.

Among other things, this change is clearer that the proprietary
version must be offered for "commercial gain" (rather than
"commercially").

5 years agoMinor change to knowhow-substitute-subclause in CS definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:41:50 +0000 (23:41 -0400)]
Minor change to knowhow-substitute-subclause in CS definition.

5 years agoDelete anti-anti-circumvention placeholder.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:01:10 +0000 (23:01 -0400)]
Delete anti-anti-circumvention placeholder.

Prior to the recent commit replacing the provision with a [FIXME], the
anti-anti-circumvention provision read:

  Each Distributor of a Covered Work (i) waives all rights to forbid
  circumvention of technological measures achieved by exercising
  rights under this License with respect to a Covered Work, and (ii)
  disclaims any intention to limit operation or modification of the
  Received Work as a means of enforcing such Upstream Distributor's or
  third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological
  measures.

which is descended from the second paragraph of GPLv3 section 3.

I am now deleting this provision in its entirety because I do not see
what real-world scenario it remedies. I assume that copyleft-next is
likely to be used principally as a license for software, much like the
GPL family.

1) Waiver: Read 'Covered Work' as broadly as possible (under
copyleft-next, at least, this means either the particular work
received by the licensee or any 'Derived Work' of that Received
Work). (Note that currently copyleft-next does not define 'Derived
Work' such that it cannot be a lateral 'Derived Work' prepared by some
other licensee in some (possibly different) distribution chain
beginning with 'Us'.)

For this waiver to be meaningful, we would have to suppose that a
Distributor (or 'We') might decide to invoke anticircumvention civil
remedies against some third party exercising copyleft-next-granted
copyright licenses "with respect to" some Covered Work. This could
mean either that the underlying copyright-protected work is the (or a)
Covered Work, or perhaps some unrelated work copyrighted by the
Distributor/We in which the asserted effective TPM is a Covered
Work.

Are these scenarios *possible*? Yes. Do they seem so likely to justify
addition of a section of the license to deal with them? At the moment
my response is 'no', but perhaps there are realistic examples I am
overlooking.

2) Disclaimer of Intent: My justification of the deletion of the
language descended from GPLv3 section 3 paragraph 1 applies here as
well. It is not clear that a 'disclaimer of intent' does anything at
all. I am not aware of anti-circumvention law statutes that give
weight to the intent of a distributor of technology that is used in a
TPM.

We will restore this provision (in improved form) if people come
forward with information suggesting that the waiver and/or disclaimer
of intent are worth restoring.

But if the only purpose of these provisions is, say, a political
statement of opposition to anti-circumvention laws, or, say, the fact
that they form an important addition to GPLv3 not present in GPLv2,
that is not a good enough reason to keep them in.

I am aware that some of my logic above might be applied by some to
other provisions, such as the patent license grant. But the difference
there is that there is now more or less a consensus that FLOSS
licenses should have some sort of patent license grant, however
minimal or maximal. No FLOSS license other than the GPLv3 family has
attempted explicitly to address anticircumvention laws since they were
introduced.

Finally, it seems to me that the 'No Further Restrictions' clause and
the copyright license grant ought to provide some of the safeguards
that the anti-anti-circumvention provisions have aimed to achieve;
and, as with some other deletions of GPLv3-specific provisions, the
outbound compatibility with (A)GPLv3 means that copyleft-next code
should satisfy those who lament the deletion of these provisions from
copyleft-next.

5 years agoFix section number references.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:23:42 +0000 (22:23 -0400)]
Fix section number references.

5 years agoBroadened proprietary-relicensing provision and made new section.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:18:06 +0000 (22:18 -0400)]
Broadened proprietary-relicensing provision and made new section.

This commit moves the proprietary-relicensing 'poison pill' from the
basic copyleft provision (Distributing Derived Works) to a separate
section and broadens its effect. Now, if the original licensor ever
does proprietary relicensing, we say that none of the conditions on
distribution (nor the termination section) apply.

5 years agoReduce 'minimum period' for source availability to two years.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:54:30 +0000 (21:54 -0400)]
Reduce 'minimum period' for source availability to two years.

This applies only to the circumstance in which one distributes object
code in a physical product and opts to make source code available on
the net. The original choice of three years was based on the 3-year
duration of the written offer option in the GNU GPL.

I'm assuming a reduction from 3 years to 2 years here is not
controversial.

5 years agoDelete GOALS file.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:41:42 +0000 (21:41 -0400)]
Delete GOALS file.

The goals stated in this file are still valid (I suppose some of them
have been achieved, or are on their way towards being achieved), but I
don't think draft notes on "goals" needs to be in this repository.

5 years agoReformat/reorder various provisions; make anti-anticircumvention FIXME.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:38:27 +0000 (21:38 -0400)]
Reformat/reorder various provisions; make anti-anticircumvention FIXME.

Some minor simplifications to the object code distribution section as
well.

I deleted the anti-anti-circumvention provision because I think it
needs to be redrafted from scratch.

5 years agoEconomize warranty disclaimer language; section title now 'No Warranty'.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:53:22 +0000 (15:53 -0400)]
Economize warranty disclaimer language; section title now 'No Warranty'.

5 years agoTweak markdown in README.md.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:48:55 +0000 (15:48 -0400)]
Tweak markdown in README.md.

5 years agoAdd Releases directory.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:43:32 +0000 (15:43 -0400)]
Add Releases directory.

5 years agoRename license-drafts directory to 'Drafts'.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:40:43 +0000 (15:40 -0400)]
Rename license-drafts directory to 'Drafts'.

5 years agoMinor typographical changes.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:26:25 +0000 (17:26 -0400)]
Minor typographical changes.

5 years agoMinor typographical changes.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:27:38 +0000 (16:27 -0400)]
Minor typographical changes.

5 years agoDelete 'or affirmed' from no-further-restrictions clause.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:22:51 +0000 (15:22 -0400)]
Delete 'or affirmed' from no-further-restrictions clause.

This was a holdover from GPLv3. It ought not to be necessary, as it
was added to GPLv3 to reflect the explicit affirmation of right to run
'the Program'.

5 years agoSimplify 'No Further Restrictions' section.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:20:29 +0000 (15:20 -0400)]
Simplify 'No Further Restrictions' section.

Instead of a list of illustrative inbound-compatible permissive
licenses, it ought to be good enough to assume that compatibility
determinations for permissive licenses will be no more difficult than
it has been under GPLv2. The one case necessary to clarify is that of
the Apache License 2.0.

5 years agoSimplify Outbound License Compatibility sec.; modify Termination sec.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:17:53 +0000 (15:17 -0400)]
Simplify Outbound License Compatibility sec.; modify Termination sec.

5 years agoMinor change to limitation of liability.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:03:01 +0000 (15:03 -0400)]
Minor change to limitation of liability.

5 years agoSection title change: "Or-later" -> "Later License Versions".
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:55:35 +0000 (14:55 -0400)]
Section title change: "Or-later" -> "Later License Versions".

5 years agoMinor improvements to Basic Definitions.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 11 Aug 2012 04:09:09 +0000 (00:09 -0400)]
Minor improvements to Basic Definitions.

Word economization and language simplification.

5 years agoMore compact presentation of Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:59:36 +0000 (19:59 -0400)]
More compact presentation of Corresponding Source definition.

5 years agoModify Or-Later to give authorization to FSF and OSI.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:52:33 +0000 (13:52 -0400)]
Modify Or-Later to give authorization to FSF and OSI.

The idea behind this revision to the Or-Later section is to add a
"check and balance" that would not otherwise be present if what I now
call the "Copyleft-Next Project" has sole power to authorize new
versions of the license. With this revision, the Copyleft-Next Project
continues to have authority to draft new versions (numbered releases),
but such new versions will be effective for purposes of the "Or-Later"
provision only if *both* the FSF and the OSI give their approval to
this.

What may still be unclear is that I don't simply mean the FSF and OSI
will recognize the new version as a free software and 'Open Source'
license, respectively (though a weaker version of this provision could
be so limited). Rather, I propose that the FSF and OSI must agree that
the new version produced by the Copyleft-Next Project is acceptable as
a new version of copyleft-next.

(No, I have not yet consulted anyone at the FSF or OSI about giving
them this check-and-balance power. :)

5 years agoEr, as I said, change ABOUT back to README.md
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:34:28 +0000 (13:34 -0400)]
Er, as I said, change ABOUT back to README.md

5 years agoCorrect and update NEWS.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:29:48 +0000 (13:29 -0400)]
Correct and update NEWS.

NEWS previously had the old name of the GitHub mirror, and did not
note the location of the FedoraHosted repository.

5 years agoMinor changes to CONTRIBUTING.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:26:08 +0000 (13:26 -0400)]
Minor changes to CONTRIBUTING.

5 years agoChange ABOUT back to README.md.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:23:37 +0000 (13:23 -0400)]
Change ABOUT back to README.md.

5 years agoModify ABOUT mainly to reflect substantial divergence from ancestral GPLv3 text.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:22:39 +0000 (13:22 -0400)]
Modify ABOUT mainly to reflect substantial divergence from ancestral GPLv3 text.

5 years agoFactor out definition of 'Separate Work'.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:07:35 +0000 (13:07 -0400)]
Factor out definition of 'Separate Work'.

The definition is used to simplify the definitions of 'Mere
Aggregation' and 'Corresponding Source'.

5 years agoFix incorrect character.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:39:32 +0000 (22:39 -0400)]
Fix incorrect character.

5 years agoMinor changes to warranty disclaimer and limitation of liability.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:33:25 +0000 (22:33 -0400)]
Minor changes to warranty disclaimer and limitation of liability.

5 years agoClarify copyleft clause anti-proprietary relicensing.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:17:29 +0000 (22:17 -0400)]
Clarify copyleft clause anti-proprietary relicensing.

The term "condition of 2(b)" was unclear in the preceding version.

5 years agoVarious substantive and nonsubstantive changes.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:07:42 +0000 (23:07 -0400)]
Various substantive and nonsubstantive changes.

Minor improvements to various definitions.

Removed definition of "You" and made "this License" alias of
copyleft-next in title.

General rearrangement of provisions.

Removed definition of "Licensable" as inherent in the term.

"Keep intact" requirement now refers to "legal notices" generally.

Deleted the "Inbound=Outbound" provision. I currently consider it more
difficult to get this right than is worthwhile. In many cases the rule
will be a result of the copyleft requirement, and I have argued that
inbound=outbound is an established custom in FLOSS legal culture.

Removed the ancient clarification that you can charge for distribution
or services (GPLv3: support or warranty) as obvious. It may be more
necessary in the GNU licenses for historical-baggage reasons. But I
have removed it primarily to save space.

Added parethetical in Object Code Distribution section that 'scripts
and instructions' are part of Corresponding Source "even if previously
unrecorded", to get at bkuhn's suggestion of using "know-how".

Folded liberty-or-death into no-further-restrictions again. Perhaps
more significantly, deleted the second sentence of the
liberty-or-death as an obvious consequence of the first sentence. I
then rephrased the first sentence.

Deleted, with sadness, the only remaining descendant of GPLv3 section
7 (the clause clarifying when licenses that permit "relicensing" under
the instant copyleft license are compatible provided that the
incompatible restrictions in the license do not survive). One reason
for deleting this is that the nonsurvival may be implicit on a fair
reading of the otherwise-incompatible license (i.e. it is probably too
much to expect licenses whose drafters did not intend them to be
GPL-incompatible to explicitly address the subject of restriction
survival when they have bothered to include an *explicit* relicensing
clause). Moreover, this is an academic issue to address (unless the
FSF were to adopt copyleft-next for a future version of the GNU GPL,
or world license domination were actually achieved).

Decided against attempting EPL compatibility for now (see discussion
on mailing list).

Took out the clause descended from the last part of GPLv3 section 10
(giving rise to a kind of patent peace provision) and instead adapted
the MPL 2.0 provision into a second part of the termination
provision. This is actually a significant policy change, as the MPL
2.0 provision is in most respects broader than the counterpart in
GPLv3 (though it is narrower in attempting to focus [to some degree]
only on non-defensive patent litigation).

5 years agoDefine 'Distributor'; generalize anti-anti-circumvention & disclaimers.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:29:12 +0000 (13:29 -0400)]
Define 'Distributor'; generalize anti-anti-circumvention & disclaimers.

5 years agoFix failure to substitute term name in direct licensing provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:46:41 +0000 (09:46 -0400)]
Fix failure to substitute term name in direct licensing provision.

5 years agoClarify anti-anti-circumvention provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:36:48 +0000 (09:36 -0400)]
Clarify anti-anti-circumvention provision.

Previously (as in GPLv3 section 3 paragraph 2) this was stated,
effectively, as a condition on Distribution (GPLv3 conveying). This
commit makes clear that it is made by all licensors. Moreover, the
'Distribution: General' section is modified to make clear that anyone
who Distributes is bound by this provision.

5 years agoSplit section 1 into 3 sections.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:22:29 +0000 (09:22 -0400)]
Split section 1 into 3 sections.

5 years agoMove 'you can charge for distribution' clause to Distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:10:55 +0000 (09:10 -0400)]
Move 'you can charge for distribution' clause to Distribution section.

5 years agoDelete rule of construction.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 7 Aug 2012 02:32:09 +0000 (22:32 -0400)]
Delete rule of construction.

See discussion at:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/commit/34d456773495487fddc45ac0c7451f39a19d869d#comment_89356

I'd like to have something like this provision, but then again
deleting it gives us three more lines. :-)

5 years agoDelete written offer option; other improvements to binary distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:36:14 +0000 (13:36 -0400)]
Delete written offer option; other improvements to binary distribution section.

Deletion of written offer option applies proposal from Luis Villa (see:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/13 ).

5 years agoFix section numbers.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:24:09 +0000 (09:24 -0400)]
Fix section numbers.

5 years agoFixed "The License" -> "Copyleft-Next".
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 04:37:17 +0000 (00:37 -0400)]
Fixed "The License" -> "Copyleft-Next".

5 years agoVarious improvements, mostly nonsubstantive.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 04:34:47 +0000 (00:34 -0400)]
Various improvements, mostly nonsubstantive.

5 years agoModify no-further-restrictions section.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 02:21:08 +0000 (22:21 -0400)]
Modify no-further-restrictions section.

Added zlib and Zope PL to illustrative list of inbound-compatible
licenses.

Improvements to patent peace provision.

5 years agoPlaceholder for EPL compatibility provision.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 01:48:58 +0000 (21:48 -0400)]
Placeholder for EPL compatibility provision.

One of the FSF's original public goals for GPLv3 in early 2006 was
compatibility with the Eclipse Public License and the Apache License,
both of which had already come to be associated with important free
software project ecosystems.

The FSF may have originally assumed that the main obstacle to
achieving compatibility for both licenses was the scope of a new
patent license grant and any "patent retaliation clause" (as the FSF
generally called such patent termination or defensive suspension
provisions as are found in those two licenses). It turned out to be
more complicated. With the EPL, compatibility was never achieved. The
EPL is a weak copyleft license (unlike the Apache License) and
contains a number of provisions customarily considered (at least by
the FSF) to be GPL-incompatible.

Both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation later (in 2010) reasserted the
view that GPLv2/GPLv3/AGPLv3 and the EPL are incompatible.

I would like to have a provision that solves this issue in some simple
way. I believe it would probably have to be something like GPLv3
section 13, and it would have to be somewhat at the mercy of
interpretation of the EPL's copyleft scope.

5 years agoModify various aspects of basic permissions section.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 01:36:32 +0000 (21:36 -0400)]
Modify various aspects of basic permissions section.

Note that the patent license grant now applies to "Covered
Works". Compare GPLv3 section 11, 3rd paragraph. Cf. Microsoft Public
License section 2B.

Also changed the heading of the trademark provision.

5 years agoModify rule of construction.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 01:25:17 +0000 (21:25 -0400)]
Modify rule of construction.

5 years agoModify bkuhn's version by deleting 'know-how' reference.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:09:16 +0000 (20:09 -0400)]
Modify bkuhn's version by deleting 'know-how' reference.

5 years agoMerge commit 'refs/merge-requests/14' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft...
Richard Fontana [Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:05:57 +0000 (20:05 -0400)]
Merge commit 'refs/merge-requests/14' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next into merge-requests/14

5 years agoClarify build/install instructions details. gplv2-level-clarification-on-source-definition
Bradley M. Kuhn [Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0000 (10:25 -0400)]
Clarify build/install instructions details.

The addition of this text makes it abundantly clear what the
scripts/instructions must include.  It's my view that this definition is a
good estimation of what "scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable" from GPLv2 means already.

5 years agoSlightly broaden the inbound = outbound clause to allow for the existence of contribu...
Luis Villa [Sun, 5 Aug 2012 06:28:50 +0000 (23:28 -0700)]
Slightly broaden the inbound = outbound clause to allow for the existence of contributor agreements that may change the conditions of submission at a time prior to the actual submission.

5 years agoRemove "for the avoidance of doubt," which is generally surplus verbiage and should...
Luis Villa [Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:58:33 +0000 (22:58 -0700)]
Remove "for the avoidance of doubt," which is generally surplus verbiage and should be avoided. See, e.g., extensive discussion here: adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/10/for-the-avoidance-of-doubt/ [If you prefer to keep the phrase, the entire section should be moved into the section that might actually create the doubt on this point - 6(b) (or maybe 7)? That may be a good idea anyway.]

5 years agoModify (and rename) rule of construction.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:09:15 +0000 (17:09 -0400)]
Modify (and rename) rule of construction.

5 years agoReplace System Libraries definition with placeholder.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 19:58:17 +0000 (15:58 -0400)]
Replace System Libraries definition with placeholder.

5 years agoModify Harvey Birdman Rule.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 19:44:04 +0000 (15:44 -0400)]
Modify Harvey Birdman Rule.

5 years agoAdd Luis Villa to THANKS and correct ordering of names
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 03:59:12 +0000 (23:59 -0400)]
Add Luis Villa to THANKS and correct ordering of names

5 years agoModify Corresponding Source definition as suggested by Luis Villa
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 03:54:07 +0000 (23:54 -0400)]
Modify Corresponding Source definition as suggested by Luis Villa

See: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-August/000088.html

I have bracketed "any" (and had previously deliberately not included
it) because of a history of issues arising out of ambiguity in "any"
(well, at least one issue: see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html )

5 years agoRevise ex-Harvey Birdman Rule, and restore name.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 02:30:29 +0000 (22:30 -0400)]
Revise ex-Harvey Birdman Rule, and restore name.

5 years agoIncorporate some of bkuhn's proposed changes to Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:51:12 +0000 (21:51 -0400)]
Incorporate some of bkuhn's proposed changes to Corresponding Source definition.

5 years agoDeleted liberty-or-death example.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 1 Aug 2012 03:21:08 +0000 (23:21 -0400)]
Deleted liberty-or-death example.

Much could be written about the example in GPLv3 section 12 and the
different example it replaces in GPLv2 section 7. I will say here
that, looked upon with fresh eyes, the copyleft-next liberty-or-death
provision seems clear enough on its own, and I see no need for an
example at this time. I expect that the history of the GNU GPL,
including the transformation from GPLv2 section 7 to GPLv3 section 12,
will inform interpretation of this provision in copyleft-next.

5 years agoSimplified and clarified termination provision.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 1 Aug 2012 03:11:17 +0000 (23:11 -0400)]
Simplified and clarified termination provision.

In response to some discussion on the mailing list, I have replaced
"reasonable period" for cure with a 30-day period.

Separately, I have now eliminated the remaining vestiges of the
automatic termination/provisional-to-permanent automatic reinstatement
structure of the GPLv3 provision. As noted in an earlier commit, this
was introduced late in GPLv3 drafting in response to concerns by those
experienced in GPL enforcement in Germany who apparently found the
automatic termination feature to provide certain procedural advantages
(as I recall). I am open to restoring the automatic
termination/reinstatement structure if a full explanation of why it is
desirable is made available. Without such explanation, I can only see
this as more unnecessary complexity.

It is possible that this alteration to the termination provision
raises some further issue, and I expect it will need refinement.

5 years agoI prefer my middle initial to appear when my name is written bkuhn-proposals/bkuhn/middle-initial-thanks
Bradley M. Kuhn [Wed, 1 Aug 2012 01:38:53 +0000 (21:38 -0400)]
I prefer my middle initial to appear when my name is written

5 years agoAdded bkuhn to THANKS file master
Richard Fontana [Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:37:54 +0000 (17:37 -0400)]
Added bkuhn to THANKS file

5 years agoCONTRIBUTING changes: fix bkuhn typo, add info re mailing list.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:36:29 +0000 (17:36 -0400)]
CONTRIBUTING changes: fix bkuhn typo, add info re mailing list.

5 years agoHandling extraordinary private communications via publication. bkuhn/public-forum-pub-of-private-conversations
Bradley M. Kuhn [Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:30:40 +0000 (21:30 -0400)]
Handling extraordinary private communications via publication.

Expecting all participants to never have a private conversation about the
project seems too difficult to follow.  Notwithstanding the "extraordinary
cases" exception, it seems likely that impromptu conversations will
nevertheless occur.

Therefore, this additional clause handles the inevitable case of what to
do when such a private conversation occurs: namely, publish some sort of
summary or the like in a public forum.

The public forum type is left as merely "suitable", since the project may
or may not have a mailing list (copyleft-next does, but others might not,
as this rule allows for it but does not require it).

Signed-off-by: Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@ebb.org>
5 years agoModified 'We' definition.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:54:03 +0000 (11:54 -0400)]
Modified 'We' definition.

5 years agoFurther simplifications of 'Corresponding Source' definition.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:38:17 +0000 (11:38 -0400)]
Further simplifications of 'Corresponding Source' definition.

5 years agoModified rule of construction.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:34:50 +0000 (11:34 -0400)]
Modified rule of construction.

5 years agoImprovements to 'Corresponding Source' definition.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:47:02 +0000 (10:47 -0400)]
Improvements to 'Corresponding Source' definition.

On the deletion of "or generally available free programs which are
used unmodified ...": This clarification is unnecessary and
potentially misleading. It should not matter whether such a program is
'free' or not. Consider a stock proprietary compiler used in
generating the Object Code. The policy behind this clarification
sentence is just as applicable to such a nonfree program as it would
be to a stock free compiler. On the other hand, one can imagine an
effort to circumvent copyleft by somehow putting improvements to the
work in question in a modified (or new) compiler. In such a case, it
still doesn't matter whether the compiler is free or nonfree (even
with a free compiler, if it is not Corresponding Source then the user
will not get source code for the improvements to the instant
work). For related reasons, the 'unmodified' clarification is not
needed. In the case where something has been specially modified so
that it is in some sense part of the instant work, it is no longer
'generally available' (consider a special internal fork of GCC
designed to circumvent the copyleft requirement) and it is
questionable whether the modified program is 'free' if its source code
has not been made public.

5 years agoSimplified definition of 'Source Code'
Richard Fontana [Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:30:12 +0000 (10:30 -0400)]
Simplified definition of 'Source Code'