copyleft-next:copyleft-next.git
5 years agoRemove ref. to pass-through provision as 'condition' in section 4.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 8 Feb 2013 05:08:34 +0000 (00:08 -0500)]
Remove ref. to pass-through provision as 'condition' in section 4.

As suggested by pchestek in her github pull request.

See: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/27
and
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/28

5 years agoClarify intended immutability of files in Releases/.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:38:55 +0000 (01:38 -0500)]
Clarify intended immutability of files in Releases/.

5 years agoExclude trademark legends from 'Legal Notices'.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:43:27 +0000 (00:43 -0500)]
Exclude trademark legends from 'Legal Notices'.

As suggested by pchestek.
See: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/29

This is consistent with an earlier change in the copyleft-next
drafting history, and seems like a good clarification.

5 years agoBroaden fair use clause as suggested by pchestek.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:09:47 +0000 (00:09 -0500)]
Broaden fair use clause as suggested by pchestek.

See: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/26

HBR cure: bkuhn made a very similar suggestion in our conversation on
the flight from Brussels to New York on 2013-02-04.

5 years agoDelete 'and otherwise transfer' from patent license grant.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 04:58:43 +0000 (23:58 -0500)]
Delete 'and otherwise transfer' from patent license grant.

As suggested by pchestek.
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/25

5 years agoGet rid of explicit condition enumeration in section 1.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 04:37:27 +0000 (23:37 -0500)]
Get rid of explicit condition enumeration in section 1.

Follows alternative suggestion of pchestek: see
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/pull/19

5 years agoFollowed pchestek suggestion of using 'condition' in condition section titles.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 04:35:17 +0000 (23:35 -0500)]
Followed pchestek suggestion of using 'condition' in condition section titles.

Not entirely sure I like this. It can save a line from current section
1 but at the cost of increasing the word count. :-)

5 years agoSpecify conditions in section 1 (per suggestion from pchestek).
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 04:17:24 +0000 (23:17 -0500)]
Specify conditions in section 1 (per suggestion from pchestek).

Query whether this makes section 3 less clear.

5 years agoMoved section 6 to follow current section 9 per pchestek suggestion.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 04:08:22 +0000 (23:08 -0500)]
Moved section 6 to follow current section 9 per pchestek suggestion.

See https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/pull/19#commitcomment-2551612

5 years agoAdd Pamela Chestek to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 03:46:21 +0000 (22:46 -0500)]
Add Pamela Chestek to THANKS.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 03:43:24 +0000 (22:43 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoRevise 'You' definition as suggested by Pam Chestek.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 7 Feb 2013 03:40:17 +0000 (22:40 -0500)]
Revise 'You' definition as suggested by Pam Chestek.

See:
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/20

5 years agoFix whitespace in license draft.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:31:24 +0000 (09:31 -0500)]
Fix whitespace in license draft.

Thanks to Max Thoursie for pointing out this issue in
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/pull/18

5 years agoFix whitespace in CONTRIBUTING.md.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:28:48 +0000 (09:28 -0500)]
Fix whitespace in CONTRIBUTING.md.

5 years agoMerge commit 'refs/merge-requests/28' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft...
Richard Fontana [Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:24:10 +0000 (03:24 -0500)]
Merge commit 'refs/merge-requests/28' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next into merge-requests/28

5 years agoBelatedly add Germán Poo-Caamaño to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:53:19 +0000 (23:53 -0500)]
Belatedly add Germán Poo-Caamaño to THANKS.

5 years agoBelatedly add Michał Masłowski to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:05:23 +0000 (23:05 -0500)]
Belatedly add Michał Masłowski to THANKS.

5 years agomodified: copyleft-next 28
Stephen Michael Kellat [Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:24:06 +0000 (14:24 -0500)]
modified: copyleft-next

This will allow for proper handling by Pandoc and other handling tools because it removes two curly marks for straight quote marks.

5 years agoAdd Stephen Michael Kellat to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:30:48 +0000 (01:30 -0500)]
Add Stephen Michael Kellat to THANKS.

5 years agoAdd Joshua Gay to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:29:04 +0000 (01:29 -0500)]
Add Joshua Gay to THANKS.

5 years agoUpdated NEWS to note 0.1.0 release and delete FedoraHosted reference.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:37:08 +0000 (18:37 -0500)]
Updated NEWS to note 0.1.0 release and delete FedoraHosted reference.

5 years agoAdd v0.1.0 in Releases directory. v0.1.0
Richard Fontana [Sat, 26 Jan 2013 05:05:05 +0000 (00:05 -0500)]
Add v0.1.0 in Releases directory.

5 years agoMinor stylistic changes in informational files.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:21:30 +0000 (22:21 -0500)]
Minor stylistic changes in informational files.

Prior uses of "copyleft-next project" are changed either to
"copyleft-next" or to "Copyleft-Next Project" (the latter being
consistent with the use in the current version of the license text).

5 years agoAdd example to category (iii) in Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:16:41 +0000 (22:16 -0500)]
Add example to category (iii) in Corresponding Source definition.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:00:41 +0000 (22:00 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years ago"from a network location" => "through a computer network" (sec. 9).
Richard Fontana [Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:58:18 +0000 (21:58 -0500)]
"from a network location" => "through a computer network" (sec. 9).

This phrasing is similar to what is used in A/GPLv3 section 0
(qualification of 'convey' definition) and AGPLv3 section 13 paragraph
1.

5 years ago'at no further charge' => 'at no charge' (section 9).
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:43:57 +0000 (01:43 -0500)]
'at no further charge' => 'at no charge' (section 9).

See: GPLv3 Third Discussion Draft Rationale
http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf p. 48, n. 52 (clarifying
the phrase "at no extra charge" which was added in GPLv3 Discussion
Draft 2).

I believe it is clear enough without the word 'further'.

5 years agoClarify in sec. 8: 2-year period is from Your last Distribution date.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:59:18 +0000 (00:59 -0500)]
Clarify in sec. 8: 2-year period is from Your last Distribution date.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:56:41 +0000 (00:56 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoRemove 'additional Source Code files' from CS definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:50:34 +0000 (00:50 -0500)]
Remove 'additional Source Code files' from CS definition.

The (rare) case I was concerned about is probably best treated as
involving 'Separate Works', potentially copyleft-next-incompatible or
even proprietary.

5 years agoIgnore.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:19:38 +0000 (00:19 -0500)]
Ignore.

5 years agoMinor phrase substitution in child-of-Liberty-or-Death sentence.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:11:22 +0000 (00:11 -0500)]
Minor phrase substitution in child-of-Liberty-or-Death sentence.

5 years agoMerge paragraphs in section 7.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:09:11 +0000 (00:09 -0500)]
Merge paragraphs in section 7.

5 years agoChange 'published' to 'released' in section 12 for consistency.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:57:58 +0000 (23:57 -0500)]
Change 'published' to 'released' in section 12 for consistency.

5 years agoAdd definition of "Copyleft-Next Project" to Definitions section.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:56:04 +0000 (23:56 -0500)]
Add definition of "Copyleft-Next Project" to Definitions section.

5 years agoChange title of section 3.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +0000 (23:48 -0500)]
Change title of section 3.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:50:16 +0000 (00:50 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoMake section 4 more concise.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:47:33 +0000 (00:47 -0500)]
Make section 4 more concise.

The clarification that the requirement to preserve 'Legal Notices'
applies to the extent such notices remain pertinent seems clear enough
without needing to specify, possibly incorrectly, that some reduction
of pertinence can only happen with something that is a 'Derived Work'.

5 years agoMinor clarification of last sentence of termination provision.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:30:57 +0000 (00:30 -0500)]
Minor clarification of last sentence of termination provision.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:28:38 +0000 (00:28 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoRemove unnecessary language from "Separate Work" definition.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:25:42 +0000 (00:25 -0500)]
Remove unnecessary language from "Separate Work" definition.

The 'runtime/standard library etc.' branch of the definition had a
definitional qualification that it be 'bundled with a Separate
Work'. This seems unnecessary and potentially confusing.

5 years agoModify definition of 'Distribute'.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 04:59:03 +0000 (23:59 -0500)]
Modify definition of 'Distribute'.

The clarification about intra-organizational transfers not being
distribution is removed as unnecessary. It is interesting to note
that, in my experience, a number of corporate lawyers have expressed
concern about GPL source code requirements being triggered by
intra-corporation transfers, and I suppose that was the purpose of the
deleted language. I am not even sure a 'Distribute' definition is
worth having (its inclusion may be seen as a legacy of GPLv3
"convey"), though I am keeping it for now, and I also add lowercase-d
distribute to the definition.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 04:50:10 +0000 (23:50 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoEliminate a few unnecessary words in Proprietary Relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 04:49:07 +0000 (23:49 -0500)]
Eliminate a few unnecessary words in Proprietary Relicensing section.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 04:37:06 +0000 (23:37 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoClarify Proprietary Relicensing grace period timed from first distribution.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 21 Jan 2013 04:34:41 +0000 (23:34 -0500)]
Clarify Proprietary Relicensing grace period timed from first distribution.

5 years agoTie no-further-restrictions specifically to Distribution of Covered Work.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:04:16 +0000 (17:04 -0500)]
Tie no-further-restrictions specifically to Distribution of Covered Work.

This change removes some potential for relatively broad readings of
the no-further-restrictions rule. Whether it goes too far is a policy
question worth discussing, and further refinements are possible, but I
believe the change here captures prevailing intuitions about the
breadth of the rule in the GPL.

5 years agoAdd definition of "You".
Richard Fontana [Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:42:56 +0000 (16:42 -0500)]
Add definition of "You".

The previous omission of a definition of "you" was deliberate (it was
one of the things cut out in the process of paring down GPLv3). Now
that copyleft-next is much smaller, there is arguably some value to
having a definition that makes an effort to unify a licensee with its
affiliates in some standard manner (perhaps mainly for the
patent-related provisions of the license).
Cf. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ApacheLegalEntity (I
consider the hint in this FAQ answer that such definitions are
belt-and-suspenders drafting to be fair).

The definition here is closely based on that of MPL 2.0.

5 years agoRemove carveout from Mere Aggregation definition.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:14:02 +0000 (11:14 -0500)]
Remove carveout from Mere Aggregation definition.

This was a descendant of the "Aggregate" definition in the final
paragraph of GPLv3 section 5. I do not believe it is necessary.

The effect of the GPLv3 'Aggregate' definition carveout is that in
cases where copyleft scope is cut off at the Aggregate boundary, the
cut-off is removed if one is conveying an aggregation under a
compilation license that "limit[s] the access or legal rights of the
compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit". As I
believe I noted in an earlier commit, this arguably goes further than
is necessary. If one supposes a copyrightable compilation C containing
works A and B, where A is copyleft-next and B is under some other
license (free or proprietary), and C meets the definition of 'Mere
Aggregation' (without the carveout), and C is governed by a license
covering the components of the compilation under terms more
restrictive than either GPLv3 or the B license, we shouldn't care (as
a policy matter for purposes of what the license of *A* should ) that
use of B is being restricted further than it was under the B
license. We should care about the effects of the C license on A. But
that already violates copyleft-next section 7, by imposing further
restrictions.

I don't see what the point is of expressing the policy in terms of
copyleft scope. Under the version of the Mere Aggregation definition
existing prior to this commit, if the idea were that the restrictive
nature of the C license justifies a broadening of copyleft scope, the
effect is that there is a violation of the copyleft requirement to
license Derived Works under copyleft-next. But we already achieve that
by the prohibition against imposition of further restrictions. The
only casualty of this change seems to be the case of the
copyleft-next-compatible subset of Bs, which could become part of a
broadened copyleft scope free of any free software license clash. But
copyleft-next does not have as its mission to save non-copyleft-next
free software from the intentionally-drafted features of their
different licenses.

Revisit if I'm missing something here, or misunderstanding the point
of GPLv3 section 5 last paragraph.

5 years agoRevise plank 3 of HBR.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 19 Jan 2013 01:21:26 +0000 (20:21 -0500)]
Revise plank 3 of HBR.

Among other things this change clarifies that private email
communications can trigger HBR.

5 years agoAdd information about IRC channel.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:26:13 +0000 (12:26 -0500)]
Add information about IRC channel.

5 years agoUse consistent grammar in "Legal Notices" definition.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:40:45 +0000 (00:40 -0500)]
Use consistent grammar in "Legal Notices" definition.

5 years agoMerge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:copyleft-next/copyleft-next
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:32:07 +0000 (00:32 -0500)]
Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:copyleft-next/copyleft-next

Because I made some mistake.

5 years agoJust to see whether my previous commit caused some disaster.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:28:34 +0000 (00:28 -0500)]
Just to see whether my previous commit caused some disaster.

5 years agoReduce set of evaporated conditions in Proprietary Relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:20:38 +0000 (00:20 -0500)]
Reduce set of evaporated conditions in Proprietary Relicensing section.

Previously, the Proprietary Relicensing section stated that sections 4
through 11 would not apply upon trigger. However, there seems to be no
reason to state that section 10 won't apply (since the resulting
permissive license is (A)GPL-compatible anyway). As for section 11, I
can see how some might criticize the elimination of the patent peace
provision merely because the Proprietary Relicensing provision has
been activated.

5 years agoReduce set of evaporated conditions in Proprietary Relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:20:38 +0000 (00:20 -0500)]
Reduce set of evaporated conditions in Proprietary Relicensing section.

Previously, the Proprietary Relicensing section stated that sections 4
through 11 would not apply upon trigger. However, there seems to be no
reason to state that section 11 won't apply (since the resulting
permissive licene is (A)GPL-compatible anyway). As for section 10, I
can see how some might criticize the elimination of the patent peace
provision merely because the Proprietary Relicensing provision has
been activated.

5 years agoMove "Legal Notices" definition to section 4.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:14:23 +0000 (00:14 -0500)]
Move "Legal Notices" definition to section 4.

5 years agoFix line lengths in section 8.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:07:25 +0000 (00:07 -0500)]
Fix line lengths in section 8.

5 years agoMove "Product" definition back to section 8.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:05:14 +0000 (00:05 -0500)]
Move "Product" definition back to section 8.

5 years agoFix line lengths in section 1.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:41:04 +0000 (23:41 -0500)]
Fix line lengths in section 1.

5 years agoMake licenses "perpetual"; restore "and conditions".
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:35:19 +0000 (23:35 -0500)]
Make licenses "perpetual"; restore "and conditions".

The GPLv3-derived language "for the duration of ... copyright" is more
succinctly expressed by the standard "perpetual"; it is appropriate to
specify this for the patent license as well as the copyright
license. I made "terms" "terms and conditions" (which I believe was in
a much earlier revision) as a bit of drafting paranoia. The
termination provision might not be a "condition" as such, but there
may be some value in mentioning "conditions" explicitly to make
sufficiently clear that irrevocability assumes compliance with the
license's conditions.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:53:42 +0000 (21:53 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoAdd "Legal Notices" definition and modify general Distribution section to use it.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:51:25 +0000 (21:51 -0500)]
Add "Legal Notices" definition and modify general Distribution section to use it.

5 years agoClarify section 12 by using definition of "Later Versions".
Richard Fontana [Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:02:54 +0000 (00:02 -0500)]
Clarify section 12 by using definition of "Later Versions".

5 years agoFix line lengths in CONTRIBUTING.md.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:25:17 +0000 (21:25 -0500)]
Fix line lengths in CONTRIBUTING.md.

5 years agoBetter phrasing of mailing list plank of HBR.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:24:16 +0000 (21:24 -0500)]
Better phrasing of mailing list plank of HBR.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:48:40 +0000 (22:48 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoDate-qualify OSI-approved license set in Proprietary Relicensing provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:43:51 +0000 (22:43 -0500)]
Date-qualify OSI-approved license set in Proprietary Relicensing provision.

The date 1 January 2013 is arbitrary (another option might be to use
the date of publication of a given released version of
copyleft-next). The point is to fix the set of OSI-approved licenses
to guard against the possibility of pathological future OSI license
approval decisions (however unlikely or remote that may be).

5 years agoFix case-o.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:39:46 +0000 (22:39 -0500)]
Fix case-o.

5 years agoAdjust line lengths in Proprietary Relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:14:56 +0000 (12:14 -0500)]
Adjust line lengths in Proprietary Relicensing section.

5 years agoBroaden Proprietary Relicensing section to cover "copyleft trolling".
Richard Fontana [Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:06:58 +0000 (12:06 -0500)]
Broaden Proprietary Relicensing section to cover "copyleft trolling".

The Proprietary Relicensing provision should also apply in
circumstances where 'We' (perhaps including licensors downstream from
the original licensor) offer to forgive past or future noncompliance
with respect to a work 'We' do not distribute (e.g., what would be a
downstream Derived Work but which is created by someone lateral to
'you') through purchase of a proprietary license.

There is some evidence that some purported GPL licensors are engaging
in such behavior (rather than the more familiar case of announcing at
the outset that proprietary licenses are available for the
GPL-licensed work distributed by the licensor, or some enhanced
version of it).

5 years agoAdd gitorious URL to later-license-versions section.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:51:33 +0000 (14:51 -0500)]
Add gitorious URL to later-license-versions section.

5 years agoReformat termination provision.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:20:43 +0000 (10:20 -0500)]
Reformat termination provision.

5 years agoMoved "Licensed Patents" definition to Definitions section.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:13:12 +0000 (08:13 -0500)]
Moved "Licensed Patents" definition to Definitions section.

With this change all defined terms are in the final section of the
license.

5 years agoEliminate non-year-defined definition of Minimum Period.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:32:41 +0000 (21:32 -0500)]
Eliminate non-year-defined definition of Minimum Period.

This change returns the 'Product Distribution' section a bit closer to
GPLv2, as the deleted language originates in a change introduced in
GPLv3. My admittedly-vague justification for this change is that, for
shipment of a given Product, there could be significant variance in
the offering of support or spare parts across Product
instances. Consider restoring this after further analysis.

5 years agoFix typo reported by Engel Nyst in Product Distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:28:35 +0000 (21:28 -0500)]
Fix typo reported by Engel Nyst in Product Distribution section.

5 years agoChange title of section 6 to "Pass-Through".
Richard Fontana [Wed, 9 Jan 2013 06:18:47 +0000 (01:18 -0500)]
Change title of section 6 to "Pass-Through".

The previous term, "direct licensing", was one I learned from Till
Jaeger and Axel Metzger in the GPLv3 process. GPLv3 itself uses
"automatic licensing" in the title of section 10. I have heard at
least one US lawyer refer to the automatic licensing provision of GPL
as a "pass through" and I have decided to adopt such terminology in
the title.

5 years agoReformat section 4, with minor clarification.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:59:47 +0000 (00:59 -0500)]
Reformat section 4, with minor clarification.

Previously, there was a parenthetical indicating that notice
preservation applied to Derived Works only to the extent they remain
pertinent. The wording f the clause might seem to sggest that this
"pertinence clarification" applies only to "legal notices" and not
also "textual author attributions".

5 years agoClarify OSI-approval reference in Proprietary Relicensing section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:54:26 +0000 (00:54 -0500)]
Clarify OSI-approval reference in Proprietary Relicensing section.

5 years agoSlightly clearer wording of exclusion part of 'Licensed Patents' definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:41:09 +0000 (00:41 -0500)]
Slightly clearer wording of exclusion part of 'Licensed Patents' definition.

5 years agoDelete explicit non-exclusion of implied patent licenses subclause.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:54:32 +0000 (15:54 -0500)]
Delete explicit non-exclusion of implied patent licenses subclause.

This text originates in the final sentence of GPLv3 section 11.

I believe it is either unnecessary belt-and-suspenders drafting or
else merits some further legal research before re-inclusion (or both).

5 years agoGeneralize non-exclusion of implied licenses.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:42:55 +0000 (15:42 -0500)]
Generalize non-exclusion of implied licenses.

5 years agoAdd Engel Nyst to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 2 Jan 2013 04:42:59 +0000 (23:42 -0500)]
Add Engel Nyst to THANKS.

5 years agoMinor change to README.md.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 1 Jan 2013 05:00:30 +0000 (00:00 -0500)]
Minor change to README.md.

This is a further refinement to some language bkuhn had added in
recently. The main change is deleting "and contributors" from the
phrase "developers and contributors". To me this suggested that
contributors [of code] are not developers, which does not seem
right. If the intention was to sweep in non-developer contributors,
however, or if it is important to specifically mention such
contributors here, we can improve on this.

5 years agoFurther improvements to Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 1 Jan 2013 04:52:38 +0000 (23:52 -0500)]
Further improvements to Corresponding Source definition.

Some of this is just fixes to the previous commit, but I have
reintroduced the "skilled developer" into category (ii).

I am bothered by the asymmetry between (ii) and (iii), but I'm not
sure yet if I should be. If only bkuhn would help out with drafting
this definition!

5 years agoRevise Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 1 Jan 2013 04:33:15 +0000 (23:33 -0500)]
Revise Corresponding Source definition.

The main change here is the deletion of the reference to "interface
definition files", introduced in GNU GPLv2. See the discussion in the
thread "Fwd: Re: Modify Corresponding Source definition, mainly to
delete 'install and run'. (14249c2)" on the copyleft-mailing list,
e.g., this helpful posting by Ted Ts'o:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-December/000344.html

Whatever was meant to be captured by adding in the "interface
definition files" reference is, I believe, adequately addressed by
category (ii) of the Corresponding Source definition as changed by
this commit.

5 years agoClarify that CS with product must be under copyleft-next.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:54:30 +0000 (19:54 -0500)]
Clarify that CS with product must be under copyleft-next.

See: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-December/000340.html (final paragraph).

5 years agoFix formatting of Definitions section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:13:45 +0000 (00:13 -0500)]
Fix formatting of Definitions section.

5 years agoMove definitions to end as aesthetic experiment.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 30 Dec 2012 04:55:30 +0000 (23:55 -0500)]
Move definitions to end as aesthetic experiment.

5 years agoFix bug introduced in Proprietary Relicensing; some rephrasing.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 30 Dec 2012 04:41:30 +0000 (23:41 -0500)]
Fix bug introduced in Proprietary Relicensing; some rephrasing.

The immediately preceding version would have activated the trigger for
Distribution under the current version of copyleft-next.

The awkwardness of "later versions of copyleft-next" (when at the
outset "this License" is indicated to be a synonym of copyleft-next)
is noted. Similar problems exist in the GNU GPL, including GPLv3
despite the introduction in that license of a definition aimed at
eliminating the issue.

5 years agoRevise Proprietary Relicensing poison pill.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:52:28 +0000 (15:52 -0500)]
Revise Proprietary Relicensing poison pill.

This commit changes the characterization of the poison pill trigger
(though there is no actual intention to change the underlying policy
or intended effect of the provision).

Previously, the licensor commits itself to a one-year limit during
which it may offer closely-related works under a proprietary
license. This was characterized as offering the closely related work
"in a manner that fails to satisfy" the (present-day) FSD. Note that
this (intentionally) went beyond formal licensing, so that even
nominal distribution of a binary under the GPL with failure to provide
Corresponding Source would trigger the poison pill.

One problem with that approach is the degree of uncertainty over
whether one is inside or outside the zone of "a manner that fails to
satisfy" the FSD. One could instead (with, arguably, some arguable
relaxation of the poison pill) focus on the nominal license. This has
the benefit of matching how we ordinarily look at the matter. We see a
company offering, say, a 'Community Edition' under the GPL, and an
'Enterprise Edition' under a proprietary license. We see the fact of a
license difference as sufficient information to conclude we are in
what Bradley Kuhn would call a circumstance of "proprietary
relicensing".

To focus on the nominal license, however, calls into question the
usefulness of relying on the FSD. The situation might be different if
the FSF saw itself, or was seen as, taking on the role of
comprehensively categorizing the set of known FSD-compliant licenses
and maintaining a set of commonly-encountered non-FSD-compliant
borderland licenses. The FSF has not taken on such a role.

The OSI takes on the role of approving or certifying OSD-compliant
licenses in a way that has no FSF FSD counterpart.

If the poison pill trigger is going to be based on nominal license
(which may make the provision more effective in one sense), we need to
carve out earlier versions of copyleft-next (I think), later versions
of copyleft-next, and also GPLv2+/AGPLv3+ outbound relicensing. We
also wish to carve out legitimate FLOSS licenses not in those
sets. One way to do this, however painfully suboptimal for so many
reasons, is to reference the set of OSI-approved licenses. There are
some OSI-approved licenses that I believe were approved in error, but
these have not seen much use, and even these do not really rise to the
level of the sort of proprietary licensing practices that this
provision reacts to. (Indeed, the undesirable OSI-approved licenses
have typically been used as the 'open source' side of mechanisms to
implement a proprietary relicensing business strategy.) So the risks
of abuse in referencing the OSI list seem small. There are other
reasons to lament the referencing of the OSI list, such as "air of
cluelessness" that will result, not to mention the offense the FSF is
likely to take (should the FSF even care about copyleft-next at all,
and it is hoped that it will care). Nevertheless, I can't think of a
better approach at the moment.

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.

5 years agoRephrased end of Proprietary Relicensing provision.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 26 Dec 2012 05:36:06 +0000 (00:36 -0500)]
Rephrased end of Proprietary Relicensing provision.

5 years agoRevise Proprietary Relicensing provision to remove defined term.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 26 Dec 2012 05:26:36 +0000 (00:26 -0500)]
Revise Proprietary Relicensing provision to remove defined term.

5 years agoCorrect license focus in Proprietary-Relicensng definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:12:31 +0000 (01:12 -0500)]
Correct license focus in Proprietary-Relicensng definition.

Strictly speaking, what matters is not the nominal license but rather
the circumstances of distribution.

5 years agoAdd grace period to proprietary relicensing poison pill.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:53:02 +0000 (00:53 -0500)]
Add grace period to proprietary relicensing poison pill.

The concern here is for the company that begins with a proprietary
product and decides to release it as free software under
copyleft-next. It is likely that in such cases the company would have
triggered the earlier version of this provision, as it would have
continued to offer the proprietary version.

5 years agoCleanup of bkuhn change.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Dec 2012 02:42:54 +0000 (21:42 -0500)]
Cleanup of bkuhn change.

5 years agoAdd Ted Ts'o to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Dec 2012 02:38:01 +0000 (21:38 -0500)]
Add Ted Ts'o to THANKS.

5 years agoMerge commit 'refs/merge-requests/26' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft...
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Dec 2012 02:34:20 +0000 (21:34 -0500)]
Merge commit 'refs/merge-requests/26' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next into merge-requests/26

5 years agoRevise Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:59:46 +0000 (20:59 -0500)]
Revise Corresponding Source definition.

To some degree this commit moves the Corresponding Source definition a
bit further away from the GPLv3 definition and back towards the GPLv2
definition.

The reference to interface definition files is moved up (similar to
GPLv2) and the term 'associated' (found in GPLv2) replaces 'relevant'.

A more significant change is the replacement of "all scripts,
instructions and information known to you necessary for a skilled
developer to build, compile, generate and modify the Covered Work"
with "all scripts, instructions and similar information that were used
to build such Source Code". "Similar" is added to avoid a potential
open-ended reading of unmodified "information". "Known to you" is
deleted to avoid arguments about what sort of knowledge is meant
(e.g., in an organizational context). Instead of referring to what is
objectively necessary for a skilled developer to compile and modify,
we revert to a GPLv2-like approach of speaking of what was actually
used to generate the binary. Which of these approaches is better may
still be debatable; it seems to be a basic policy question that should
be informed by practical experiences in GPL enforcement. A side-effect
of this change is that the 'expansive set of verbs' definitional
approach associated with GPLv3, which admittedly has some benefits, is
now gone.

bkuhn's 'list requirement', a novel addition to the definition, is
retained with some greater conciseness.

Finally, I have decided to delete the GPLv3-derived "Source Code of
shared libraries that the Covered Work is specifically designed to
require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow
between those libraries and parts of the Covered Work". I do this with
significant regret and reluctance, as I like that phrase in the GPLv3
definition for multiple reasons. On the copyleft-next mailing list,
Ted Ts'o suggests it, or part of it, may suffer from vagueness. My
question is whether, if it should be preserved, should it not be
better placed in the definition of Covered Work (or Derived Work) (in
which case it would by implication be caught by the definition of
Corresponding Source)? One value of this language is that it
demonstrates that simplistic views of FSF strong copyleft doctrine are
incorrect. However, the FSF handled this matter well in the pre-GPLv3
era through public commentary. I am vaguely concerned that, in
copyleft-next, there is some logical problem with its placement in the
Corresponding Source definition. I cannot quite articulate that well
without some discussion from someone (e.g. Bradley?) who might wish to
argue for its retention. (I am not at all so concerned that the
meaning of 'intimate' (also used in the FSF GNU Licenses FAQ) may be
argued by some to be insufficiently clear; I find it helpfully
suggestive as legal language.)

Essentially, I wish to understand what this language accomplishes that
is frustrated by its removal.

If I distribute object code Foo, and there is some shared library Bar
that Foo is specifically designed to require, then perhaps I should be
required to include the Source Code of Bar in some cases, but why
shouldn't that be a clarification to the definition of Covered
Work/Derived Work? If I am already distributing Bar with (in some
sense) Foo, why isn't it already captured by the existing definitions?
If I am not distributing Bar, why does strong copyleft policy care
whether I provide its Source Code? (This is not a rhetorical question;
there may be a good answer.) It seems best to start over with this
one, sadly.

5 years agoFix formatting and line lengths in section 1.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:49:46 +0000 (20:49 -0500)]
Fix formatting and line lengths in section 1.