copyleft-next:copyleft-next.git
4 years agoHonesty don't remember. experimental
Richard Fontana [Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:55:37 +0000 (06:55 -0500)]
Honesty don't remember.

5 years agoModified top definitions; added Covered Code definition; add 'lawful uses unaffected...
Richard Fontana [Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:45:26 +0000 (01:45 -0400)]
Modified top definitions; added Covered Code definition; add 'lawful uses unaffected' provision.

The 'No Trademark License' clause is now placed in a separate section.

The 'Lawful Uses Unaffected' provision resembles a clause that was in
earlier releases of copyleft-next. It seems important to bring it back
since now we are avoiding explicit reliance on derivative work-like
legal constructs. For example, if You modify a file in 'My Code' in
such a way that copying no longer requires a license from Me, it still
will meet the technical definition of "Modified Code", but You can
treat it as outside the scope of the license.

5 years agoMoved some definitions to top; new definition of "Neighboring Code".
Richard Fontana [Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:15:46 +0000 (01:15 -0400)]
Moved some definitions to top; new definition of "Neighboring Code".

The term "neighboring code" was used by Eben Moglen in a 2006
conversation we had concerning the LGPL (though the definition
attempted here is probably not quite what Eben meant). I recall using
it in an early draft of LGPLv3 and the term has stuck with me since.

5 years agoSubstantial rewrite of copyleft-related provisions.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:04:00 +0000 (01:04 -0400)]
Substantial rewrite of copyleft-related provisions.

Section 3 combines the pass-through, the basic copyleft requirement
for what I'm currently calling 'Modifications', and the prohibition
against imposition of further restrictions.

A new section 4 then collects 'Exceptions and Limitations': the later
version permission (which I feel needs some satisfactory legal
explanation built in?), the MPL 2.0-style GPL outbound licensing
permission, an awkward rewording of the inbound-compatibility
provision, and a new clause that says that 'Aggregates' (which will be
defined like 'Mere Aggregation') can be licensed arbitrarily restrictively as
long as the restrictions do not affect rights in the Covered Code.

5 years agoMinor change (indefinite article).
Richard Fontana [Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:44:27 +0000 (23:44 -0400)]
Minor change (indefinite article).

5 years agoAdd warranty disclaimer to 'Legal Notices'; move 'or later' clause into outbound...
Richard Fontana [Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:30:50 +0000 (01:30 -0400)]
Add warranty disclaimer to 'Legal Notices'; move 'or later' clause into outbound compatibility provision; move 'Later Version' definition to definitions section

5 years agoMove definitions back to last section; fix line lengths
Richard Fontana [Sat, 15 Jun 2013 04:52:34 +0000 (00:52 -0400)]
Move definitions back to last section; fix line lengths

5 years agoMore work on initial definitions, particularly 'Modification'
Richard Fontana [Sat, 15 Jun 2013 04:27:03 +0000 (00:27 -0400)]
More work on initial definitions, particularly 'Modification'

5 years agoDelete spurious definition from section 2
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:21:54 +0000 (19:21 -0400)]
Delete spurious definition from section 2

5 years agoMove some basic definitions back to top of copyleft-next
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:20:40 +0000 (19:20 -0400)]
Move some basic definitions back to top of copyleft-next

5 years agoTerminology changes in permissive-next for consistency with copyleft-next
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:22:39 +0000 (18:22 -0400)]
Terminology changes in permissive-next for consistency with copyleft-next

5 years agoReplace 'Object Code' with 'Object Code Form'
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:28:34 +0000 (02:28 -0400)]
Replace 'Object Code' with 'Object Code Form'

5 years agoReplace '[a] Covered Work' with 'Covered Code' to match 'My Code'
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:39:06 +0000 (01:39 -0400)]
Replace '[a] Covered Work' with 'Covered Code' to match 'My Code'

5 years agoRevise definition of 'My Code' to make file-oriented
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:30:47 +0000 (01:30 -0400)]
Revise definition of 'My Code' to make file-oriented

5 years agoReplace 'My Work' with 'My Code'
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:25:08 +0000 (01:25 -0400)]
Replace 'My Work' with 'My Code'

5 years agoFurther changes necessitated by adoption of 'Modification' approach
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:15:47 +0000 (01:15 -0400)]
Further changes necessitated by adoption of 'Modification' approach

5 years agoInitial addition of MPL-style 'Modifications' definition (based on MPL 1.1)
Richard Fontana [Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:50:22 +0000 (23:50 -0400)]
Initial addition of MPL-style 'Modifications' definition (based on MPL 1.1)

5 years agoFirst draft of permissive-next.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 20 May 2013 02:12:35 +0000 (22:12 -0400)]
First draft of permissive-next.

5 years agoAdd 0.3.0 to Releases. v0.3.0
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:57:38 +0000 (20:57 -0400)]
Add 0.3.0 to Releases.

5 years agoFix spurious capital in 'My Work' definition.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:52:35 +0000 (20:52 -0400)]
Fix spurious capital in 'My Work' definition.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:51:27 +0000 (20:51 -0400)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoRevise definition of "Licensed Patents" to clarify meaning of 'licensable'.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:49:30 +0000 (20:49 -0400)]
Revise definition of "Licensed Patents" to clarify meaning of 'licensable'.

Licenseable should not include third-party patents that 'I' can
sublicense on a non-RF basis.

5 years agoImprove phrasing of nullification provision.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:47:50 +0000 (20:47 -0400)]
Improve phrasing of nullification provision.

5 years agoImproved phrasing of para. 2 in object code distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:43:26 +0000 (20:43 -0400)]
Improved phrasing of para. 2 in object code distribution section.

5 years agoEliminate "Compatible License" definition in section 4.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:35:31 +0000 (20:35 -0400)]
Eliminate "Compatible License" definition in section 4.

5 years agoRevise 'Derived Work' definition to implement weak copyleft default rule.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 17 May 2013 00:18:05 +0000 (20:18 -0400)]
Revise 'Derived Work' definition to implement weak copyleft default rule.

The purpose of this change is best explained with an example.

If a Python file foo.py contains the line 'import bar', where bar is a
library licensed under copyleft-next, the mere inclusion of 'import
bar' without anything more is not in itself enough to make foo.py a
Derived Work of bar (regardless of whether it might otherwise fit the
definition of Derived Work).

However, if bar also contains some statement from the licensor like:

  Licensed under copyleft-next. Any code that imports bar, and which
  otherwise meets the definition of 'Derived Work' of bar in
  copyleft-next , shall be considered a Derived Work of bar even if
  such code is not distributed with bar.

then foo.py in itself falls within the copyleft scope of bar provided
that it meets the definition of 'Derived Work'.

5 years agoAdd Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 May 2013 03:45:12 +0000 (23:45 -0400)]
Add Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez to THANKS.

5 years agoDelete unnecessary reference to FSF publication in 'GPL' definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 May 2013 03:38:44 +0000 (23:38 -0400)]
Delete unnecessary reference to FSF publication in 'GPL' definition.

5 years agoFactor definitions of 'FSF-Free', 'OSI-Approved', (expanded) 'GPL'.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 May 2013 03:28:15 +0000 (23:28 -0400)]
Factor definitions of 'FSF-Free', 'OSI-Approved', (expanded) 'GPL'.

A substantive change here is that 'GPL' now means the GNU AGPL as well
as the GNU GPL, so the MPL 2.0-like compatibility mechanism of section
3, paragraph 2 now allows for AGPL compatibility directly. This is
done principally to reduce the verbosity that was previously
introduced into following section.

There is arguably some redundancy between the more specific section 3,
paragraph 2 and the more general section 4, paragraph 2, with respect
to 'GPL' compatibility (ignore the fact that 'GPL' includes the
non-OSI-Approved GPLv1). However, I think this is really not so, as
the 'compliance' in the 'GPL' case for section 4 purposes would not be
clear without section 3, paragraph 2. (?)

5 years agoExpand title of section 1.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 14 May 2013 03:08:46 +0000 (23:08 -0400)]
Expand title of section 1.

5 years agoFix incorrect section number references.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 13 May 2013 04:53:32 +0000 (00:53 -0400)]
Fix incorrect section number references.

5 years agoClarify Corresponding Source definition.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 5 May 2013 04:38:02 +0000 (00:38 -0400)]
Clarify Corresponding Source definition.

Partially responsive to comment 7 of Luis Villa at
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-April/000638.html

5 years agoClarify 'no new copy loophole' clause in termination section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 5 May 2013 04:25:56 +0000 (00:25 -0400)]
Clarify 'no new copy loophole' clause in termination section.

Luis Villa pointed out that the sentence in 0.2.1 was inelegant, at
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-April/000638.html
comment 6.

5 years agoReplace "network location" with "URL" in section 5.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 5 May 2013 04:06:39 +0000 (00:06 -0400)]
Replace "network location" with "URL" in section 5.

Inspired by comment 4 of Luis Villa at
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-April/000638.html

5 years agoClarify language of sections 7 and 8.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 5 May 2013 02:42:08 +0000 (22:42 -0400)]
Clarify language of sections 7 and 8.

Responsive to Luis Villa's comment 2 in
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-April/000638.html

5 years agoInbound license compatibility for non-GNU Rule-of-Two licenses.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:04:47 +0000 (23:04 -0400)]
Inbound license compatibility for non-GNU Rule-of-Two licenses.

This change essentially implements something similar in spirit to the
suggestion, made in this GitHub issue filed by clopez:
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/15.

It may be seen as a generalization of the earlier clause in the
no-further-restrictions section allowing for inbound Apache-2.0
license compatibility; that clause is now deleted.

The carveout of the GPL and AGPLv3 is, or appears, awkward. One
possible simplification would be to add AGPLv3 as an
outbound-compatible license through the mechanism of section 3, second
paragraph.

This is actually a significant change; it practically removes
copyleft-next from the intricate license compatibility doctrine
universe associated with orthodox GPL interpretation.

I considered adding an explicit statement that Object Code Covered
Works need to be fully compliant with section 5. That perhaps can be
adequately addressed in a FAQ. The effect of this change is
reminiscent of some of the GNU-style linking exceptions that condition
the exception on providing the source code for the linked
GPL-incompatible object code.

5 years agoMove nullification provision further down.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:26:47 +0000 (23:26 -0400)]
Move nullification provision further down.

Luis Villa pointed out a couple of times on the mailing list that it
was odd for a provision of this sort to be presented so 'early' in the
license text.

5 years agoAdd 0.2.1 to Releases. v0.2.1
Richard Fontana [Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:12:15 +0000 (01:12 -0400)]
Add 0.2.1 to Releases.

5 years agoImprove 'Patch' provision.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:00:55 +0000 (01:00 -0400)]
Improve 'Patch' provision.

This is a minor change aimed at consistency with the basic copyleft
requirement in cases of 'unlicensed' upstream contributions.

5 years agoMinor stylistic change in last sentence of section 5.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:10:15 +0000 (00:10 -0400)]
Minor stylistic change in last sentence of section 5.

5 years agoDelete definition of 'Apache License'; clarify reference in section 5.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 9 Mar 2013 06:02:36 +0000 (01:02 -0500)]
Delete definition of 'Apache License'; clarify reference in section 5.

5 years agoAlphabetized items in Definitions section.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 9 Mar 2013 05:59:39 +0000 (00:59 -0500)]
Alphabetized items in Definitions section.

5 years agoImprovements to child-of-poison-pill (COPP) section.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 9 Mar 2013 05:20:09 +0000 (00:20 -0500)]
Improvements to child-of-poison-pill (COPP) section.

Changes in this commit:

1) The one year grace period is eliminated. The original justification
for this was the corporate asset acquisition scenario. For
copyleft-next it seems silly to treat this as a concern. The
supposition would be that some corporation would acquire some
proprietary software product and desire to 'open-source' it under
copyleft-next, but would suffer from immediate impact of the COPP if
there is any overlap in proprietary and copyleft-next licensing (which
typically there would be). If, in a hundred years, this sort of
scenario becomes real, we or our successor license stewards can add
the grace period back in.

Perhaps there is some additional justification for the grace period,
but I do not see it at the moment.

2) COPP is now triggered only if the proprietary license is "for a
fee". This revives an earlier variant of this provision which spoke of
commercial licensing. This limitation may address some hypotheticals
critics have raised on identi.ca and in the comments to Martin
Michlmayr's LWN.net article on my FOSDEM talk.

3) In response to some suggestions from others on the mailing list, I
have replaced 'failure to satisfy the OSD' with an older formula: an
OSI-approved license, an FSF 'free' license, or a numbered version of
copyleft-next, as the negative definition of 'proprietary'.

4) In response to suggestions from others on the mailing list, I have
gone back to the more elegant solution of collapsing copyleft-next
into 'permissive-next' rather than reference a different external
license (Apache 2.0).

5 years agoFix typo in README.md.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:08:48 +0000 (03:08 -0500)]
Fix typo in README.md.

5 years agoRemove 'strong vs. weak' explanation; replace 'strong' with 'non-weak'.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:09:00 +0000 (17:09 -0500)]
Remove 'strong vs. weak' explanation; replace 'strong' with 'non-weak'.

Looking at the direction in which copyleft-next is going, I have
recently wondered whether characterizing it as a strong copyleft
license in a specific FSF/RMS-esque sense is still entirely
accurate. A couple of provisions in 0.2.0, among the more interesting
ones in the license, provide for the disappearance of copyleft under
certain circmstances (proprietary relicensing after a grace period,
and passage of 15 years from first distribution).

I also believe the copyleft-next notion of copyleft scope may not be
exactly the same as that espoused by the FSF in its interpretation of
the GPL. It will still be the case that anyone is on safe interpretive
ground if they treat copyleft-next scope as equivalent to GPL copyleft
scope.

That said, copyleft-next shall remain a 'stronger' copyleft than the
weakest ones (like the MPL), hence my replacement of 'strong' with
'non-weak'.

5 years agoRemove NEWS file as not The Done Thing (as suggested by someone on IRC).
Richard Fontana [Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:53:37 +0000 (20:53 -0500)]
Remove NEWS file as not The Done Thing (as suggested by someone on IRC).

5 years agoAnti-badgeware clause: generalize 'powered-by statements' to 'trademarks'.
Pamela Chestek [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:47:02 +0000 (23:47 -0500)]
Anti-badgeware clause: generalize 'powered-by statements' to 'trademarks'.

See:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000566.html

5 years agoRestore defined terms 'Distribute' and 'Distributor'.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:01:03 +0000 (22:01 -0500)]
Restore defined terms 'Distribute' and 'Distributor'.

This may be desirable for legal i18n purposes.

5 years agoDelete child-of-fair-use clause in section 1.
Pamela Chestek [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:23:47 +0000 (21:23 -0500)]
Delete child-of-fair-use clause in section 1.

See:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000598.html
(see also other mailing list discussion concerning the deleted clause).

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:20:08 +0000 (21:20 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoRestore "such that copyright permission is required" in 'Derived Work'.
Pamela Chestek [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:16:26 +0000 (21:16 -0500)]
Restore "such that copyright permission is required" in 'Derived Work'.

Reverts an 0.1.0 -> 0.1.1 change.

See:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000615.html

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:14:47 +0000 (21:14 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoDelete 'to Me' in upstream contribution provision.
Engel Nyst [Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:09:31 +0000 (21:09 -0500)]
Delete 'to Me' in upstream contribution provision.

See:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000595.html

5 years agoUpdate NEWS re 0.2.0.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:39:33 +0000 (22:39 -0500)]
Update NEWS re 0.2.0.

5 years agoAdd 0.2.0 release. v0.2.0
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:03:05 +0000 (22:03 -0500)]
Add 0.2.0 release.

5 years agoAdd 'Copyleft Sunset' provision.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:39:36 +0000 (21:39 -0500)]
Add 'Copyleft Sunset' provision.

See mailing list thread "Limited-term copyleft" beginning at
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000499.html

5 years agoSome rewording of object code distribution condition.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:28:49 +0000 (21:28 -0500)]
Some rewording of object code distribution condition.

Mainly restores accidental deletion of the 2-year requirement for
network-available source where binaries are distributed in products.

5 years agoMove inbound=outbound condition earlier in license text.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:08:51 +0000 (21:08 -0500)]
Move inbound=outbound condition earlier in license text.

5 years agoMinor improvement to inbound=outbound condition.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:06:41 +0000 (21:06 -0500)]
Minor improvement to inbound=outbound condition.

5 years agoAdd inbound=outbound-style contribution condition.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:01:30 +0000 (21:01 -0500)]
Add inbound=outbound-style contribution condition.

This is inspired by Apache License 2.0 section 5. The term
'symmetrical licensing' in this context was, to my knowledge, coined
by Mike Milinkovic of the Eclipse Foundation.

5 years agoSimplify object code distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:44:53 +0000 (20:44 -0500)]
Simplify object code distribution section.

With this simplified presentation, network access is the normal way to
comply with the source code requirement, but the distributor of a
'Product' can alternatively comply by accompanying it with the source
code.

5 years agoEconomize 'no remote downstream termination' clause in termination section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:34:35 +0000 (20:34 -0500)]
Economize 'no remote downstream termination' clause in termination section.

5 years agoMinor word order change in pass-through section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:31:11 +0000 (20:31 -0500)]
Minor word order change in pass-through section.

5 years agoAdd 'powered by' clauses to anti-badgeware clause in section 3.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:27:44 +0000 (20:27 -0500)]
Add 'powered by' clauses to anti-badgeware clause in section 3.

5 years agoSome rewording of 'nullification' provision.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:24:45 +0000 (20:24 -0500)]
Some rewording of 'nullification' provision.

One change here is to refer simply to 'Covered Work' rather than
something that 'would have been a Covered Work had you prepared it'. I
believe the latter language may have been tied to earlier versions of
Covered Work definition.

5 years agoReverse order of child-of-fair-use clause and no-trademark-license clause.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:18:22 +0000 (20:18 -0500)]
Reverse order of child-of-fair-use clause and no-trademark-license clause.

5 years agoRevise README.md in various ways.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:16:32 +0000 (20:16 -0500)]
Revise README.md in various ways.

5 years agoAdd Masayuki Hatta and Kuno Woudt to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:06:19 +0000 (20:06 -0500)]
Add Masayuki Hatta and Kuno Woudt to THANKS.

5 years agoSimplify 'Derived Work' definition slightly.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:26:51 +0000 (09:26 -0500)]
Simplify 'Derived Work' definition slightly.

The parenthetical about preexisting material is deleted as potentially
creating more confusion than clarity.

5 years agoDelete 'part of' part of 'My Work' definition as potentially confusing.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:04:41 +0000 (09:04 -0500)]
Delete 'part of' part of 'My Work' definition as potentially confusing.

It seems that substantially unmodified portions of the work I license
(think particularlly of source code) ought to similarly fit the simple
'My Work' definition.

5 years agoRemove 'Distributor' definition and remaining capitalized 'Distribut-' usages.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:57:42 +0000 (08:57 -0500)]
Remove 'Distributor' definition and remaining capitalized 'Distribut-' usages.

5 years agoSome changes to 'Derived Work' and 'My Work' definitions.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:34:40 +0000 (08:34 -0500)]
Some changes to 'Derived Work' and 'My Work' definitions.

'Derived Work' adds 'derivative work' and its definition and that of
'My Work' clarify that they do not refer to preexisting material as
such (cf. 17 U.S.C. 103(b).

5 years agoRemoved definitions of 'Distribute' and 'Distributor'.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:16:38 +0000 (08:16 -0500)]
Removed definitions of 'Distribute' and 'Distributor'.

The definition of 'Distribute' did not really do very much. Taking it
out makes 'Distributor' unnecessary; the only remaining references to
'Distributor' were in the disclaimer provisions where they can be
substituted with 'distributor of My Work'. (Note that any mere
licensee-distributor must be distributing an upstream 'My Work' by
definition.)

5 years agoConspicuousness markers: ## -> **
Richard Fontana [Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:15:36 +0000 (02:15 -0500)]
Conspicuousness markers: ## -> **

M. Hatta indicated a preference for the asterisk over the hashmark in
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000546.html

5 years agoEffectively revert copyleft nullification generalization and 'Give' definition.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:14:29 +0000 (23:14 -0500)]
Effectively revert copyleft nullification generalization and 'Give' definition.

Trying to cover the scenario of the licensor who nominally licenses a
binary under the GPL without providing Corresponding Source seems more
trouble than it is worth.

The main point I suppose is that the licensee should be relieved from
having to comply with the (effectively impossible) Corresponding
Source requirement. However, it is possible that even worrying about
explicitly covering this scenario (though it has occurred in real
life) is falling into GPL hyperlegalization trap.

5 years agoFix line lengths in I/You definition and change 'any' to 'each'.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:53:27 +0000 (22:53 -0500)]
Fix line lengths in I/You definition and change 'any' to 'each'.

5 years agoMerge "I" and "You" definitions for common handling of legal entity issue.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:49:46 +0000 (22:49 -0500)]
Merge "I" and "You" definitions for common handling of legal entity issue.

5 years agoMerge 'No Trademark License' into section 1.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:38:57 +0000 (22:38 -0500)]
Merge 'No Trademark License' into section 1.

5 years agoGeneralize copyleft nullification; define 'Give' Corresponding Source.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:29:35 +0000 (22:29 -0500)]
Generalize copyleft nullification; define 'Give' Corresponding Source.

The 'poison pill' section is now titled "Copyleft Nullification" and
adds a second trigger: if the licensor provides only a binary without
providing Corresponding Source (as has sometimes been known to happen
with the initial licensor in GPL experience). Whether this is really
worth adding (at the cost of three lines and ~16 words) is open to
question.

As a consequence of this change, the notion of providing Corresponding
Source was factored out of section 7 into a new definition of 'Give'
[Corresponding Source] in the final section, which is generalized to
cover any Distributor, including the initial licensor.

5 years agoignore
Richard Fontana [Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:40:00 +0000 (01:40 -0500)]
ignore

5 years agoignore
Richard Fontana [Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:34:57 +0000 (01:34 -0500)]
ignore

5 years agoAdd third-party beneficiary clause to object code distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:19:58 +0000 (23:19 -0500)]
Add third-party beneficiary clause to object code distribution section.

This commit may be the most iconoclastic in the history of the
drafting of copyleft-next to date.

The intent of this change is that recipients of binaries, in addition
to the upstream copyright holder(s), will be able to enforce
compliance with the Corresponding Source requirements stated in the
section, if applicable law allows such a cause of action.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:42:49 +0000 (18:42 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoCombine object code distribution sections into one section.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:38:44 +0000 (18:38 -0500)]
Combine object code distribution sections into one section.

5 years agoDelete unnecessary 'in any medium' from copyright license grant.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:15:43 +0000 (17:15 -0500)]
Delete unnecessary 'in any medium' from copyright license grant.

This is ancient GPL phrasing. While harmless, I see no harm in
deleting it. The idea (the only objection I can anticipate) that the
deletion opens up some possible argument that some particular
*unspecified* 'medium' through which the copyright licensee exercises
the license grant is closed off through failure to say "in any medium"
is self-evidently preposterous.

5 years agoRevise copyright license grant language to use statutory language.
Pamela Chestek [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:09:53 +0000 (15:09 -0500)]
Revise copyright license grant language to use statutory language.

See: https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/24

Issue noted by @pchestek:

    In the grant, my practice is to use the statutory language
    (admittedly U.S.) of the exclusive rights of the author so it's
    unassailably clear which rights you are licensing. If you don't
    like that, I would be ok with “copy” instead of "reproduce"
    (although there are statements in case law that “copy” is
    shorthand for “infringe any of the exclusive rights of the
    author,” so using the word “copy” leaves room for a little bit of
    mischief) but I have no idea what “make” might mean in a copyright
    context. (I think compiling the source code would be preparing
    derivative work, so that wouldn't be “making” a work.) You also
    should specifically grant the right to prepare derivative works –
    it's clearly intended and implied, but a little odd not to
    expressly state it when it's probably the most important right
    you're granted. I debated whether to say “prepare Derived Works”
    or “prepare derivative works” and decided the latter was right
    because then there couldn't be any ambiguity about whether there
    was some type of derivative work that the license didn't allow you
    to create, i.e., one that would be a derivative work but that
    wouldn't be a Derived Work. For the same reason I lower-cased
    “Distribute,” to make it clear that you were granting a license
    for all distribution rights, not just ones you define.

    You might want to consider looking at foreign law to see whether
    there are any other concepts you should include in the grant.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:35:12 +0000 (14:35 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years agoRemove explicit requirement for CS to be under 'this License'.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:26:31 +0000 (14:26 -0500)]
Remove explicit requirement for CS to be under 'this License'.

This seems to cause more potential for conceptual puzzlement than is
necessary.

Source code in the strictest sense (cf. GPLv3 definition of complete
source code) will need to comply with the conditions stated earlier in
the license anyway.

As for such things as build scripts, those that I have encountered
(and it is notable that they seem to be customarily treated as what
copyleft-next calls 'Separate Works') are of rather dubious
copyrightability. This will be all the more true of 'instructions and
similar information' and the new 'list of Separate Works'.

5 years agoFix line lengths.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:50:05 +0000 (13:50 -0500)]
Fix line lengths.

5 years ago'Received Work' -> 'My Work'.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:58:54 +0000 (12:58 -0500)]
'Received Work' -> 'My Work'.

"Received Work" is a suboptimal symbol for the underlying concept,
because what's being licensed is essentially what GPLv3 (using a term
from MPL 1.1) calls the 'contributor version' in its patent license
grant. It may or may not be identical to what is *actually* received
by "You", the downstream licensee.

This change may create or expose a further suboptimality, which is
that 'My Work' sounds like it might just cover "the things I added",
which is not the intention. A clarification to the definition of "My
Work" may be useful.

5 years agoRevert "Delete child-of-fair-use sentence in section 1."
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:25:56 +0000 (10:25 -0500)]
Revert "Delete child-of-fair-use sentence in section 1."

This reverts commit c2ac8dc3dd555fe8e481e8554385d318cc127bc5.

This is a result of reading Pam Chestek's comment on the mailing list:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000525.html

5 years agoDelete child-of-fair-use sentence in section 1.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:16:09 +0000 (10:16 -0500)]
Delete child-of-fair-use sentence in section 1.

This follows from discussion initiated by Luis Villa on the mailing
list concerning the generalization of the earlier language that was
proposed by Pam Chestek and implemented in 0.1.1.

I think the subject matter of this sentence is better stated in a FAQ.

5 years agoDouble hashmarks surrounding disclaimers for conspicuousness.
Luis Villa [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 03:24:09 +0000 (22:24 -0500)]
Double hashmarks surrounding disclaimers for conspicuousness.

As suggested by Luis Villa on the mailing list:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-February/000519.html

5 years agoMove definition of 'GPL' to section 5.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 03:16:10 +0000 (22:16 -0500)]
Move definition of 'GPL' to section 5.

5 years agoEase comprehensibility of proprietary relicensing poison pill.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 03:01:39 +0000 (22:01 -0500)]
Ease comprehensibility of proprietary relicensing poison pill.

One of the problems of drafting this provision is how to define
'proprietary license'. I do not know a good way to do so in positive
terms, so I've done so by trying to say what a proprietary license
*isn't*, with the expectation that this won't sweep in anything that
shouldn't be swept in. In the previous version, a proprietary license
effectively meant a license that wasn't (i) an authorized version of
copyleft-next, (ii) an OSI-approved license (as of the beginning of
2013), or (iii) a version of the GPL.

In this commit, I replace all that with the notion of compliance with
the Open Source Definition. (I don't think we can count on OSI
approval of any particular version of copyleft-next, let alone *all*
of them, so using "OSI-approved licenses" would require restoring the
separate reference to authorized versions of copyleft-next. That
actually may be worthwhile, despite the additional length.

Another issue with this provision is that the basic hack is a bit
non-obvious to the casual reader. I've addressed this already by
changing the section heading, but here I go a step further. Instead of
saying the immediately cryptic 'sections 4 through 8 no longer apply'
(as the casual reader may not have read those sections yet), in this
new version the copyleft-next verson nominally remains but the
licensor additionally licenses the Received Work under the Apache
License 2.0.

The reference to an external license instead of the technique of
making copyleft conditions of copyleft-next disappear represents a
significant loss of elegance, but the result is hopefully easier to
understand.

5 years ago'We' -> 'I'
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:20:58 +0000 (20:20 -0500)]
'We' -> 'I'

Use of 'We' to refer to a single-instance upstream licensor may be
more confusing than simply using singular 'I'. The only real
disadvantage to 'I' is that it seems out of place when talking about a
corporate licensor (in common US English, at least, corporations
typically refer to themselves using 'We').

5 years agoImprove title of section 3.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:16:18 +0000 (20:16 -0500)]
Improve title of section 3.

5 years agoFix bug in poison pill introduced by deletion of old section 10.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 14 Feb 2013 03:57:36 +0000 (22:57 -0500)]
Fix bug in poison pill introduced by deletion of old section 10.

5 years agoAdd Martin Michlmayr to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:51:41 +0000 (07:51 -0500)]
Add Martin Michlmayr to THANKS.

5 years agoUpdate NEWS to reflect 0.1.1 release.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:49:34 +0000 (07:49 -0500)]
Update NEWS to reflect 0.1.1 release.