copyleft-next:funnelfiascos-copyleft-next.git
5 years agoUpdate wording to reflect changes made upstream.
Ben Cotton [Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:33:45 +0000 (23:33 -0400)]
Update wording to reflect changes made upstream.

5 years agoMerge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'
Ben Cotton [Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:16:12 +0000 (23:16 -0400)]
Merge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'

5 years agoModified title of sec. 11 in view of deletion from previous commit.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:26:51 +0000 (00:26 -0400)]
Modified title of sec. 11 in view of deletion from previous commit.

5 years agoDelete child-of-downstream-shielding.
Richard Fontana [Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:13:35 +0000 (00:13 -0400)]
Delete child-of-downstream-shielding.

In the drafting history of GNU GPLv3, this provision (which is of
great interest to students of GNU GPL history) began its life as a
simple and very broadly worded requirement to "shield" downstream
recipients from third-party patent claims licensed to the distributor
and as to which the distributor distributed "knowingly relying" on the
patent license. It met with significant resistance from some
patent-holding vendors involved in the drafting process and was
substantially narrowed into the present-day provision. This provision
contains a narrow definition of "knowingly relying" and is satisfied
merely by ensuring that source code is available free of charge on the
net.

The narrowness of the provision makes its utility questionable in view
of its length. It should not be abandoned altogether, but rather, as
with the deleted provision corresponding to GNU GPLv3 section 11
penultimate paragraph, it needs to be considered in some broader
policy exploration of how copyleft-next should deal, if at all, with
the issue of third-party patent licensing of distributors. As with the
other provision, this is a "back to the drawing board" situation.

5 years agoRestored 'individual or entity' clarification to "You" definition.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:21:08 +0000 (13:21 -0400)]
Restored 'individual or entity' clarification to "You" definition.

5 years agoClarified 'unconditional execution right' in termination section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:13:36 +0000 (12:13 -0400)]
Clarified 'unconditional execution right' in termination section.

5 years agoNEWS in reverse chronological order.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:15:24 +0000 (00:15 -0400)]
NEWS in reverse chronological order.

Someone (I can't remember who) suggested this in IRC.

5 years agoAdd 'general rule of construction' section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:04:00 +0000 (00:04 -0400)]
Add 'general rule of construction' section.

In a sense this restores something that that the deleted Preamble
provides to the GNU GPL. The text is adapted from the simple
goal-statement substitute for the Preamble in Allison Randal's 2007
effort to draft a simpler alternative to GPLv3 (see:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/05/gplv3-clarity-and-simplicity.html).

This is responsive to the issue raised on GitHub by Mike Linksvayer
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/12

5 years agoMoved unconditionality-of-execution clause to termination section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:55:52 +0000 (23:55 -0400)]
Moved unconditionality-of-execution clause to termination section.

Also, broadened the clarification about charging for services.

5 years agoSimplify 'keep notices intact' condition.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:38:43 +0000 (23:38 -0400)]
Simplify 'keep notices intact' condition.

This change suggests an enlarged requirement (the condition is to keep
any sort of license notice intact, not just copyleft-next license
notices). This is consistent with standard practice.

5 years agoModify title of liberty-or-death section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:36:24 +0000 (23:36 -0400)]
Modify title of liberty-or-death section.

It remains unclear whether child-of-downstream-shielding should
properly be considered part of liberty-or-death as a principle. Until
that policy issue is decided, it is better for the section title not
to suggest otherwise.

5 years agoModified basic permissions to clarify perpetuality.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:27:41 +0000 (23:27 -0400)]
Modified basic permissions to clarify perpetuality.

It is now stated subsequent to the copyright and license grants that
they are perpetual except to the extent rights are terminated.

5 years agoDerivative => "Derived Work"
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:21:42 +0000 (23:21 -0400)]
Derivative => "Derived Work"

5 years agoMinor changes to limitation of liability section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:08:35 +0000 (23:08 -0400)]
Minor changes to limitation of liability section.

5 years agoMinor changes to no-warranty section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:47:16 +0000 (22:47 -0400)]
Minor changes to no-warranty section.

5 years agoMinor changes to liberty-or-death.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:51:32 +0000 (21:51 -0400)]
Minor changes to liberty-or-death.

5 years agoMinor changes to license grants in basic permissions section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:16:05 +0000 (21:16 -0400)]
Minor changes to license grants in basic permissions section.

5 years agoSome simplifications in definitions.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:55:07 +0000 (20:55 -0400)]
Some simplifications in definitions.

Deleted definition of 'Entity' which I took from Apache License 2.0
(not used in GNU GPL family or EPL). Definition of "You" simplified to
use term "anyone" instead of "person or Entity" (cf. EPL definition of
"Recipient").

5 years agoMinor language economizations.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:44:12 +0000 (20:44 -0400)]
Minor language economizations.

"Terms and conditions" => "terms"; "License" defined in such a way
that "terms of this License" ordinarily should be replaceable with
"this License".

5 years agoAdd severability clause.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:27:40 +0000 (01:27 -0400)]
Add severability clause.

No published draft of GNU GPLv3 included a general severability
clause, but the FSF noted publicly that it had considered such
inclusion in early drafts. The FSF chose not to do so because it was
thought that the prospect of a judicially-altered GPL was worse than
any benefit a severability clause might bring. (A special-purpose
severability clause was present in GNU GPLv2 liberty-or-death but was
removed in the corresponding section of GNU GPLv3.)

Severability clauses are fairly common in legal instruments and are
found in some well-known FLOSS licenses (e.g. MPL, EPL). It seems to
me that the potential benefits of inclusion of such a clause on the
legal robustness of the license outweigh the original concerns.

5 years agoDeleted now-unnecessary 'permanently' from termination provision.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:22:17 +0000 (01:22 -0400)]
Deleted now-unnecessary 'permanently' from termination provision.

5 years agoSubstantial simplifications to termination provision
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:11:01 +0000 (01:11 -0400)]
Substantial simplifications to termination provision

GNU GPLv3 modified the automatic termination of GNU GPLv2 with
detailed language providing for, in effect, two different kinds of
cure opportunities. The reasons for the existence of two cure clauses
are best seen as non-policy-related consequences of the complex
drafting history of GNU GPLv3. The result today is a provision that is
more complex than necessary. (It may be noted, however, that Mozilla
chose to adopt the GNU GPLv3 approach in MPL 2.0 section 5.1.)

It may be that there is some difference in nature between the 60-day
provision (which does not use the term 'cure') and the
later-introduced 30-day cure provision that supports preservation of
both.

The revised version here dispenses entirely with stating a specific
time period.

The feature of automatic termination coupled with the possibility of
license reinstatement was a late introduction to GNU GPLv3, reflecting
concerns about the impact of earlier language on ease of license
enforcement in Germany. This feature is preserved here.

5 years agoMinor tweak to new versions section.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 04:49:04 +0000 (00:49 -0400)]
Minor tweak to new versions section.

5 years ago"Essential Patent Claims" => "Licensed Patents"
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 04:10:23 +0000 (00:10 -0400)]
"Essential Patent Claims" => "Licensed Patents"

"Essential Patent Claims" was a bit of an odd adaptation of
standards-agreement terminology. "Licensed Patents" is more intuitive.

5 years agoGeneralize 'Distribution' definition; modify disclaimer sections.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:54:24 +0000 (23:54 -0400)]
Generalize 'Distribution' definition; modify disclaimer sections.

5 years agoMinor change in distribution section (applicable -> pertinent).
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:35:53 +0000 (23:35 -0400)]
Minor change in distribution section (applicable -> pertinent).

5 years agoAdded to legal notices requirement preservation of textual author attributions.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:31:29 +0000 (23:31 -0400)]
Added to legal notices requirement preservation of textual author attributions.

Versions of the GNU GPL have required that 'appropriate copyright
notices' be included, but have never required preservation of author
attributions (though licenses with reasonable author attribution
requirements have been treated as compatible, and this is made
explicit in GNU GPLv3 section 7). In reality, copyright notices in
FLOSS development often serve an attribution function. It is good
policy to encourage the use of actual author attribution notices
(instead of copyright notices) if the goal is, in fact, attribution.

5 years agoRevise distribution section to allow providing URL of license text.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:25:34 +0000 (23:25 -0400)]
Revise distribution section to allow providing URL of license text.

In practice this is often done by FLOSS projects in place of bundling
an actual copy of the license. One may object to this liberalization
by noting that a licensee without practical net access might not get
adequate notice of terms. This scenario becomes increasingly
unrealistic. The Creative Commons licenses (at least in the 3.0
generation) allow such means of providing notice of licensing terms.

5 years agoModify basic-permissions; add some associated definitions for patent license.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:15:15 +0000 (23:15 -0400)]
Modify basic-permissions; add some associated definitions for patent license.

Among other things, the 'Essential Patent Claims' is made a bit more
conventional. The "would be infringed by some manner..." language is
replaced with standards-influenced 'necessarily [infringed]' which
appears in some FLOSS license patent grants. An interim draft of GNU
GPLv3 had 'necessarily', in fact; I'm not sure whether the change here
represents any improvement. It is not meant to work a narrowing of
scope. "Licensable" (appearing undefined in Apache License 2.0 and
defined in MPL) is added and defined, essentially by factoring out
part of the previous Essential Patent Claims definition.

5 years ago"Program" -> "Received Work"; "Derivative Work" -> "Derivative"
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:55:31 +0000 (22:55 -0400)]
"Program" -> "Received Work"; "Derivative Work" -> "Derivative"

"Received Work" is obviously not evocative of software; some have
suggested making copyleft-next more obviously suitable for
non-software works, though I am not yet sure if that's desirable as a
main goal. "Received Work" is a bit strange but it does connote in a
very direct way what the "Program" concept means.

"Derivative" is shorter than "Derivative Work" and is slightly freer
(in an appearance sense) of the US copyright law baggage associated
with "derivative work" as used in GNU GPLv2.

One substantive change made in the course of these defined term name
changes: I now state that there is unconditional permission to run all
Covered Works (i.e., including Derivatives, not just Received Works
['Programs']). I don't think this is a major policy change (and
perhaps is even what most GNU GPL licensors intend).

5 years agoAdded Apache definition of 'Entity' (used now in 'You').
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:43:32 +0000 (22:43 -0400)]
Added Apache definition of 'Entity' (used now in 'You').

Not convinced this is necessary (GNU GPLv2/v3 appear to have gotten by
fine without it) but including it for now.

5 years agoChanged 'Contributor' to 'Licensor'.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:39:18 +0000 (22:39 -0400)]
Changed 'Contributor' to 'Licensor'.

I'd been avoiding 'Licensor' for its legalisticness but 'Contributor'
is counterintuitive - it suggests an 'inbound contributor' to a
project (so someone at least one step removed from the actual Licensor
potentially).

5 years agoClearer definition of 'License' (a bit influenced by Apache License 2.0).
Richard Fontana [Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:34:44 +0000 (22:34 -0400)]
Clearer definition of 'License' (a bit influenced by Apache License 2.0).

5 years agoClear up a potential ambiguity pointed out by mtjm in IRC
Ben Cotton [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:45:22 +0000 (13:45 -0400)]
Clear up a potential ambiguity pointed out by mtjm in IRC

5 years agoMerge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:~funnelfiasco/copyleft-next/funnelfiascos...
Ben Cotton [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:38:58 +0000 (12:38 -0400)]
Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:~funnelfiasco/copyleft-next/funnelfiascos-copyleft-next

5 years agoA first attempt to come up with a supplement to allow the temporary
Ben Cotton [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:33:36 +0000 (12:33 -0400)]
A first attempt to come up with a supplement to allow the temporary
release of binary-only. Inspired by Ted Ts'o's TPL[0] proposal.

[0] http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/TPL.html

5 years agoA first attempt to come up with a supplement to allow the temporary
Ben Cotton [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:33:36 +0000 (12:33 -0400)]
A first attempt to come up with a supplement to allow the temporary
release of binary-only. Inspired by Ted T'so's TPL[0] proposal.

[0] http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/TPL.html

5 years agoCapitzalize 'you' to be consistent with the style
Ben Cotton [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:19:30 +0000 (12:19 -0400)]
Capitzalize 'you' to be consistent with the style

5 years agoSome changes in liberty-or-death.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:47:21 +0000 (21:47 -0400)]
Some changes in liberty-or-death.

The two provisions in the copyleft-next liberty-or-death section
(corresponding to GNU GPL liberty-or-death and GNU GPLv3 section 11
paragraph 5, aka 'child-of-downstream-shielding') should be reconciled
somehow (or else perhaps split into different sections). In this
commit I have modified the beginning of the second paragraph so that
the second paragraph is not presented as a kind of exception to the
first paragraph.

5 years agoRestored separate liberty-or-death section.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:35:11 +0000 (21:35 -0400)]
Restored separate liberty-or-death section.

The no-further-restrictions section is rather long with
liberty-or-death (including child-of-downstream-shielding) combined
with it. Moreover, as suggested in one of the earliest commits to
copyleft-next, the heading "Liberty or Death" is too good not to use.

If the no-further-restrictions section, and/or the now-separate
liberty-or-death section, are streamlined further, the question of
combining the sections should be revisited.

5 years agoFurther improvements to no-further-restrictions section.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:30:29 +0000 (21:30 -0400)]
Further improvements to no-further-restrictions section.

Here we delete the clause derived from GNU GPLv3 section 7 which
clarifies that additional terms under that section can either take the
form of an integral license text or a sort of one-off exception or
extra condition. This no longer seems worth pointing out (indeed there
may be a justification for not doing so, as it is probably good policy
not to go out of our way to encourage tacking on of nonstandard
standalone GNU-GPL-compatible conditions to GNU GPL-licensed software).

5 years agoDelete removability-of-GPL-incompatible-restriction clause, etc.
Richard Fontana [Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:06:10 +0000 (21:06 -0400)]
Delete removability-of-GPL-incompatible-restriction clause, etc.

In addition to some minor changes, mostly in the
no-further-restrictions section, this commit deletes the
cleverly-conceived clause of GNU GPLv3 section 7 which authorizes the
licensee to remove additional terms that are "further restrictions".

The rationale for this clause is made clear in historical
documents. See, e.g. GPLv3 Third Discussion Draft Rationale, section
4.2:

   We have also clarified two clauses in section 7 that concern the
   consequences of placement of a non-allowed additional requirement
   on a work.  Draft 2 introduced a clause that authorizes recipients
   to remove a non-allowed additional requirement that the work
   purports to impose. The kind of case contemplated by this clause is
   that of a program that explicitly purports to be licensed under the
   GPL along with a supplementary restriction, such as a prohibition
   on commercial use.

To my knowledge, in the real world of GNU GPLv3/GNU AGPLv3 experience,
this invitation to remove incompatible additional terms has generally
not been (explicitly) taken advantage of in situations where it ought
to have been applicable.

Perhaps a better approach to dealing with the legitimate problem
addressed by this provision is to attempt to reason with the licensor,
or to shun the licensor's software altogether.

5 years agoImprovements to beginning of no-further-restrictions section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:49:41 +0000 (13:49 -0400)]
Improvements to beginning of no-further-restrictions section.

Title changed to reflect that the section takes over role played by
GNU GPLv3 in articulating theory of (inbound) license compatibility.

The Apache-style patent-termination-triggering-patent-litigation
language is preserved, even though one might argue with other changes
it is not necessary, since an explicit patent termination clause has
become de rigeur. Might be better to make this more clearly tied to
the termination provision; the fact that GNU GPLv3 has Apache-like
patent termination (though broader in that copyright licenses can be
terminated as well as patent licenses) is something that has on
occasion had to be spelled out to those trying to understand the
license.

But the third paragraph takes a rather different approach to
articulating inbound license compatibility theory than GNU
GPLv3. Instead of trying to codify GNU GPLv2 interpretive tradition
with formulations of generalized categories (along with the extra
stuff, notably the addition of a category modeled on Apache License
2.0 section 9 upstream indemnification and the limited-badgeware
detail), we do something rather simpler: list a few licenses everyone
agrees are (or in the case of Apache License 2.0, should be)
GPL-compatible, and let that explicitly-illustrative list guide
interpretation. We may wish to add one or more additional licenses to
this list. It would seem that no copyleft license could be included
here without careful examination.

5 years agoMinor stylistic edit at end of termination section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:35:36 +0000 (10:35 -0400)]
Minor stylistic edit at end of termination section.

5 years agoInitial pass at simplification of object code distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:21:22 +0000 (01:21 -0400)]
Initial pass at simplification of object code distribution section.

This commit makes an initial attempt to reduce the prolixity of
section 6, but with care to preserve what specific features seem
essential. Some policy changes are made. For example, the distributor
of a physical product can comply by providing notice of a network
location from which the Corresponding Source may be obtained, instead
of being limited to either use of the offer or providing Corresponding
Source along with the product. The simplified language of the option
for network distribution of binaries is influenced by my historical
research into clarifications made by RMS regarding how the
corresponding GNU GPLv2 provision mapped to use of FTP in
circumstances that were present in the early 1990s. Much of the detail
in this part of the section, not present in GNU GPLv2 but having some
basis in (I believe) pre-GNU GPLv3 versions of the GNU license FAQ, is
really not essential.

The offer option is not limited to cases where the distributor is
shipping object code in a physical product (cf. GNU GPLv2 section 3).

I have deleted entirely the "pass on a copy of the written offer to
your friend" provision. It is clear from a comparison of the
counterpart clauses in GNU GPLv2 and GNU GPLv3 that the FSF wished to
narrow the scope of this provision somewhat. I question whether it is
necessary at all (given, e.g., the likely scope of 'distribution' or
the equivalent under applicable copyright law and likely enforcement
patterns). It is not unreasonable to impose upon licensees who might
fall under the GNU GPLv3 counterpart provision the burden of either
satisfying section 6 in some other way or of taking on the risk that
the upstream licensors are unlikely to police such activity.

These changes to section 6 will require further refinement, and debate
over the policy decisions I have made here is welcomed.

5 years agoDelete Legal Notices definition; improvements to sec. 5.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:52:06 +0000 (00:52 -0400)]
Delete Legal Notices definition; improvements to sec. 5.

This commit deletes the Legal Notices definition (which I now think is
broader than necessary, and is now only used in one clause
anyway). The requirement to "keep intact notices" is made a bit
narrower (though consistent with how the corresponding requirement in
GNU GPLv2/GPLv3 should be understood, I think). Previously I believe I
was thinking also of notice preservation requirements resulting from
inclusion of code under other license terms, but it ought not be
necessary to deal with that explicitly here.

There is still an argument for a broader "preserve legal notices"
requirement, but that can be revisited (perhaps addressed in the
no-further-restrictions section).

I have also modified section 5 so that it no longer is specific to
source code distribution. This is not inconsistent with the
traditional approach taken in GNU GPL (where a distributor of a binary
has permission to distribute "under the terms of" the source code
distribution sections, along with additional conditions).

I remove the requirement of including prominent notice of modification
in the case of Derivative Works. This decision can be debated, but it
reflects common practice. It may be a good example of an aspirational
or normative rule that shouldn't necessarily be stated as a copyright
condition.

Finally a few editorial changes are made to the heading and beginning
of section 6.

5 years agoClarified and narrowed anti-proprietary-relicensing clause.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:30:54 +0000 (00:30 -0400)]
Clarified and narrowed anti-proprietary-relicensing clause.

This change avoids the ambiguity of verb "license". In addition, the
clause is now triggered only by the Contributor "commercially"
offering the Covered Work under Proprietary Terms. A noncommercial
offering either seems nonproblematic from a policy standpoint, or
unrealistic with respect to the particular problem this clause
addresses, or both.

5 years agoDeleted obsolete reference to section 7 in section 5 copyleft clause.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:28:16 +0000 (00:28 -0400)]
Deleted obsolete reference to section 7 in section 5 copyleft clause.

5 years agoModified previous commit with broadened language re adjusting legal notices.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:24:08 +0000 (00:24 -0400)]
Modified previous commit with broadened language re adjusting legal notices.

One can imagine a situation not involving "license notices" (an
example that comes to mind is a trademark legend) where it may be
necessary to remove the notice. Perhaps that specific example is
better addressed by narrowing the definition of Legal Notices. This
may require further refinement.

5 years agoAdded MPL 2.0 language re limited ability to correct license notices.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:18:27 +0000 (00:18 -0400)]
Added MPL 2.0 language re limited ability to correct license notices.

5 years agoDeleted Contractor Transfer definition and use in no-further-restrictions.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:09:33 +0000 (00:09 -0400)]
Deleted Contractor Transfer definition and use in no-further-restrictions.

No mainstream FLOSS license other than GNU GPLv3 attempts to clarify
this matter (I believe the concern only arose because of the FSF's
helpful attempts to provide interpretive guidance for GNU GPLv2 in its
FAQ, though I'm not sure). Licensees concerned about this issue have
the freedom under copyleft-next to relicense under GNU GPLv3. The
policy issue can be reexamined if others consider inclusion of this
clarification important.

5 years agoMove "machine-readable" back from CS definition to object code section.
Richard Fontana [Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:03:31 +0000 (00:03 -0400)]
Move "machine-readable" back from CS definition to object code section.

5 years agoClarified definitions of "Program" and "Derivative Work".
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:43:54 +0000 (00:43 -0400)]
Clarified definitions of "Program" and "Derivative Work".

5 years agoElaborated on definition of Derivative Work.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:33:48 +0000 (00:33 -0400)]
Elaborated on definition of Derivative Work.

My assumption is that under this clarified definition, compiled object
code would be a Derivative Work of the source code from which it was
generated. There are policy consequences of this clarification which
will need to be examined further.

5 years agoFixed ambiguity in "Contributor" definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:29:28 +0000 (00:29 -0400)]
Fixed ambiguity in "Contributor" definition.

5 years agoClarified definition of "Legal Notices" (includes license texts).
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:06:37 +0000 (00:06 -0400)]
Clarified definition of "Legal Notices" (includes license texts).

5 years agoUpdated NEWS with info about IRC.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:43:40 +0000 (23:43 -0400)]
Updated NEWS with info about IRC.

5 years agoUpdated NEWS with info about mailing list.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:36:46 +0000 (23:36 -0400)]
Updated NEWS with info about mailing list.

5 years agoRough merge of additional terms and no-further-restrictions sections.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:02:27 +0000 (22:02 -0400)]
Rough merge of additional terms and no-further-restrictions sections.

Given that the additional terms section no longer addresses additional
permissions, it is an elaboration on no-further-restrictions, as
indeed is liberty-or-death which was merged with
no-further-restrictions in an earlier commit. In theory it seems
sensible to try to combine them all in one section. The current
combination is quite undesirably lengthy, however.

5 years agoImprovement to additional terms section.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:27:16 +0000 (21:27 -0400)]
Improvement to additional terms section.

The sentence in GNU GPLv3 "All other non-permissive additional terms
are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section
10" now seems unnecessarily confining, and perhaps should not be taken
too literally. Interpretation of "further restriction" should be
allowed to evolve based on experience (as happened under GNU GPLv2).

5 years agoDeleted now-spurious 'also' in Distribution definition.
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:22:58 +0000 (21:22 -0400)]
Deleted now-spurious 'also' in Distribution definition.

5 years agoFix section number reference (courtesy of dw51476).
Richard Fontana [Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:02:40 +0000 (21:02 -0400)]
Fix section number reference (courtesy of dw51476).

Merge commit 'refs/merge-requests/4' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next into merge-requests/4

5 years agoFix section reference.
dw51476 [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:56:52 +0000 (16:56 -0500)]
Fix section reference.

5 years agoRestore a word which got accidentally killed
Ben Cotton [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:41:56 +0000 (17:41 -0400)]
Restore a word which got accidentally killed

5 years agoMerge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'
Ben Cotton [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:38:19 +0000 (17:38 -0400)]
Merge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'

5 years agoClarifies inbound=outbound rule.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:11:23 +0000 (16:11 -0400)]
Clarifies inbound=outbound rule.

'Contribution' has been renamed 'Inbound Contribution' to reduce the
potential for confusion now that 'Contributor' is being (re)used to
mean something that is generally distinct, though a licensee bound by
the inbound=outbound clause could subsequently become a part of what
'Contributor' means.

Moreover, previously a 'Contribution' had to be 'modification to the
Covered Work'. An issue here is that Covered Work now ==
{Program|Derivative Work by the licensee}. The revised definition is
more general, stating that an Inbound Contribution is a 'work
... intended for inclusion in a modified or successor version'. I have
considered whether 'Derivative Work' should be a more generalized
concept (Derivative Work by upstream as well as by 'You') and have
already had, in some earlier versions, additional defined terms
attempting to get at that idea.

Separately, the inbound=outbound rule is clarified so that the
exceptional case (where the licensee-contributor indicates other
terms) must be made at the time of submission of the upstream
contribution.

5 years agoReplaced "We" with "Contributor"; related improvements.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:39:37 +0000 (01:39 -0400)]
Replaced "We" with "Contributor"; related improvements.

"We" is potentially confusing given that we may have just one licensor.

There continues to be a drafting complexity here because I've been
restructuring the license in a way that attempts to clarify the
licensor-licensee relationship. However a given 'Program' received by
'You' may be the result of a multitude of different ancestral
'Programs' licensed under copyleft-next.

The solution here (for now) is influenced particularly by CC BY-SA
3.0. The important automatic (direct) licensing provision of the GNU
GPL has a counterpart in at least that particular CC license. Where
the GNU GPL speaks of an automatic license to the 'Program' flowing
from possibly-remote upstream copyright holders, CC BY-SA says that
the automatic licensing of recipients of 'Adaptations' is a license to
the original Work. That approach is taken in this commit in the change
to the automatic licensing clause.

A separate change made in this commit is to move the 'Contractor
Transfer' reference from a carveout of the Distribution definition to
a carveout of the "further restrictions" concept.

5 years agoFixed redundancy and made clarification in source code distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 02:41:18 +0000 (22:41 -0400)]
Fixed redundancy and made clarification in source code distribution section.

5 years agoMerge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'
Ben Cotton [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 01:31:48 +0000 (21:31 -0400)]
Merge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'

5 years agoLICENSE-DRAFTS => license-drafts
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:20:24 +0000 (11:20 -0400)]
LICENSE-DRAFTS => license-drafts

5 years agoChanged sec. 4 heading.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:12:14 +0000 (06:12 -0400)]
Changed sec. 4 heading.

5 years agoRemoved no-longer-needed trademark-clause compatibility from sec. 7.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:08:33 +0000 (06:08 -0400)]
Removed no-longer-needed trademark-clause compatibility from sec. 7.

5 years agoGenericized initial paragraph of ws-supp and dl-supp.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:57:57 +0000 (05:57 -0400)]
Genericized initial paragraph of ws-supp and dl-supp.

5 years agoChanged 'Supp' file names for consistency with copyleft-next file.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:15 +0000 (05:53 -0400)]
Changed 'Supp' file names for consistency with copyleft-next file.

5 years agoPopulated CREDITS and changed name to THANKS.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:47:05 +0000 (05:47 -0400)]
Populated CREDITS and changed name to THANKS.

5 years agoChanged name of imaginary License Steward.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:30:16 +0000 (05:30 -0400)]
Changed name of imaginary License Steward.

5 years agoClarified ex-Harvey-Birdman-Rule.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:24:19 +0000 (05:24 -0400)]
Clarified ex-Harvey-Birdman-Rule.

There could be extraordinary situations where private (or more
private) communication will be necessary, advisable or
appropriate. However, it should be the exception rather than the rule.

5 years agoMade LICENSE-DRAFTS directory and moved drafts there.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:17:05 +0000 (05:17 -0400)]
Made LICENSE-DRAFTS directory and moved drafts there.

5 years agoAdd CREDITS file.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:13:58 +0000 (05:13 -0400)]
Add CREDITS file.

5 years agoAdded warning at top of license texts stating they are mere drafts.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:52:43 +0000 (04:52 -0400)]
Added warning at top of license texts stating they are mere drafts.

5 years agoUpdated goals.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:46:21 +0000 (04:46 -0400)]
Updated goals.

5 years agoGave more neutral name to AL-Supp (now DL-Supp).
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:37:03 +0000 (04:37 -0400)]
Gave more neutral name to AL-Supp (now DL-Supp).

This parallels the name given to WS-Supp, which is descriptive.

5 years agoChange filename AL-Supp => DL-Supp.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:35:22 +0000 (04:35 -0400)]
Change filename AL-Supp => DL-Supp.

5 years agoMake prefatory language in "Supps" consistent; clarify compatibility.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:55:04 +0000 (03:55 -0400)]
Make prefatory language in "Supps" consistent; clarify compatibility.

This surely needs more thought, but the idea here is that one of these
two copyleft-next "Supps", corresponding to GNU AGPLv3 and the
anti-lockdown provisions of GNU GPLv3 section 6, can only be imposed
by the original upstream licensor. This is *essentially* the way GNU
AGPLv3 works today, only GNU AGPLv3 is presented as a separate sibling
license to GNU GPLv3 (and there are special cross-compatibility
clauses).

In earlier public drafts of GNU GPLv, there was no "Affero clause" as
such; rather, a description of a category of licenses with Affero-ish
provisions was among the several kinds of compatible additional
requirements listed today in section 7. I recall that someone once
proposed that the FSF prepare canonical license texts for the allowed
additional requirements, which for the most part would not have been
sensible, but in essence this is what was done for GNU AGPLv3 --
except that GNU AGPLv3 was written as a whole new license, mostly
identical to GNU GPLv3.

Cf. also the long-forgotten GNU GPLv2 section 8, which explicitly
legitimized the ability of the "original copyright holder" to "add an
explicit geographical distribution limitation", which, if exercised,
might not be regarded as FLOSS today. (I know of only one historical
case where this was exercised, in a context that was quite
problematic, but the possibility for abuse doesn't seem relevant to
WS-Supp and AL-Supp.)

This is not the way the anti-lockdown provisions of GNU GPLv3 work
today. There is, in fact, no entirely mandatory way to achieve what I
have currently done with AL-Supp in GNU GPLv3 today. The original
licensor can place an additional permission allowing licensees to
ignore the anti-lockdown requirements, but additional permissions can
be removed by licensees. This is the inverse, as it were.

Perhaps we need to clarify that (or whether) one can, with appropriate
copyright permission, dual-license code under copyleft-next-vanilla
and copyleft-next-AL-Supp [etc.]. This raises an important policy
question which I am deferring for now. As a related matter, I have not
addressed in copyleft-next itself the issue of compatibility of
validly "Supp"-covered material with vanilla copyleft-next
material.

5 years agoMoved anti-lockdown provision to opt-in supplementary terms.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:17:52 +0000 (23:17 -0400)]
Moved anti-lockdown provision to opt-in supplementary terms.

5 years agoRenamed supp docs; adapted AGPLv3 sec. 13 to WS-Supp.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:01:42 +0000 (23:01 -0400)]
Renamed supp docs; adapted AGPLv3 sec. 13 to WS-Supp.

The text is similar to AGPLv3 section 13 but includes changes
reflecting changes in copyleft-next relative to GNU GPLv3. The second
paragraph of AGPLv3 section 13 will probably be made unnecessary by a
future commit.

5 years agoModify intro to Harvey Birdman Rule and delete rule name.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 02:48:46 +0000 (22:48 -0400)]
Modify intro to Harvey Birdman Rule and delete rule name.

5 years agoadd placeholder files for proposed opt-in supplementary terms.
Richard Fontana [Sat, 14 Jul 2012 02:20:43 +0000 (22:20 -0400)]
add placeholder files for proposed opt-in supplementary terms.

5 years agoRemove circularity from Program, We, and You definitions.
dw51476 [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:52:55 +0000 (10:52 -0500)]
Remove circularity from Program, We, and You definitions.

5 years agoMerge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'
Ben Cotton [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:39:43 +0000 (08:39 -0400)]
Merge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'

5 years agoAdded Creative Commons-style meta-disclaimer.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:30:59 +0000 (01:30 -0400)]
Added Creative Commons-style meta-disclaimer.

5 years agoAdded no-trademark-rights clause (simplified from MPL 2.0 version).
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:49:57 +0000 (00:49 -0400)]
Added no-trademark-rights clause (simplified from MPL 2.0 version).

5 years agoAdded silly placeholder dereference for License Steward.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:38:54 +0000 (00:38 -0400)]
Added silly placeholder dereference for License Steward.

5 years agoDelete UI Legal Notices requirement in source distribution section.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:10:20 +0000 (00:10 -0400)]
Delete UI Legal Notices requirement in source distribution section.

This requirement, a form of which has been in the GNU GPL since at
least GNU GPLv1, really makes no particular sense in a section devoted
generally to the permission to distribute source code (for many
conceivable source code derivative works this would seem to be an
unreasonable requirement if read literally). But if it is desirable to
preserve this on policy grounds it can't be limited to the object code
distribution section. Perhaps it could be bundled into the definition
of Legal Notices somehow, but I have my doubts.

This is a good example of an issue that I think should, ideally, be
discussed/debated by strong copyleft-favoring project developers and
users. Delete for now.

5 years agoModified section 4 title to match section 5.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:47:29 +0000 (23:47 -0400)]
Modified section 4 title to match section 5.

5 years agoMerge sections 4 and 5 for simplicity.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:37:48 +0000 (23:37 -0400)]
Merge sections 4 and 5 for simplicity.

Section 4 (on verbatim source distribution) having been quite
simplified, it seems sensible to fold it into the following more
complex section on distributing Derivative Works in Source Code form.

At the same time, there is some simplification of the language. For
example, the notion that it is necessary to add an explicit
requirement concerning section 7 additional requirements seems of
dubious importance. If a licensor does not bother to include a new
allowed additional requirement, that is the licensor's choice and no
such requirement is imposed downstream. If the licensor includes a new
allowed requirement by way of inclusion of third-party
copyleft-next-compatible material, the requirement to preserve Legal
Notices takes care of the notice problem.

Another simplification is the removal of a requirement to include a
"relevant date" (GNU GPLv2: "the date of any change") when one
provides notice of a modification. This is better treated as a
normative practice as it is often unobserved in the real world. I do
not question the importance of good 'legal' coding practices, but just
because they are good doesn't mean they should be license conditions,
particularly if they will very often be ignored.

5 years agoMinor changes to "GNU Strong Copyleft License" definition.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:15:42 +0000 (23:15 -0400)]
Minor changes to "GNU Strong Copyleft License" definition.

5 years agoSimplify structure of patent license grant.
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:03:33 +0000 (23:03 -0400)]
Simplify structure of patent license grant.

Previous commits if anything added complexity to the architecture of
the license draft in addressing the patent license grant.

A problem noted during the course of GNU GPLv3 drafting was that
existing drafts did not bind the original licensor to grant the same
patent license that (in certain such drafts) distributors were
required to grant (or make equivalent nonassert covenants).

The ultimate solution adopted in GNU GPLv3 was to have a provision in
its section 11 that paralleled the automatic licensing provision (in
its section 10), applicable to upstream GPLv3 "contributors"
(copyright-holding licensors).

In my previous commits I made things more complicated by such
mechanisms as a definition of "Predecessor Program" and so forth.

In this commit a simpler solution is proposed: just include the patent
license grant along with the basic copyright license grant in the
current form of the "basic permissions" section. The effect ought to
be similar to that of GNU GPLv3, since those who create and Distribute
Derivative Works must license the entire Derivative Work under
copyleft-next, which means they must grant the copyright and patent
licenses set forth in the basic-permissions section.

This allows some simplification of the text.

5 years agoRename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:22:23 +0000 (22:22 -0400)]
Rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next

Applies patch from Luis R. Rodriguez.

5 years agoRemove issue tracker reference (applies patch from Luis Rodriguez).
Richard Fontana [Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:19:52 +0000 (22:19 -0400)]
Remove issue tracker reference (applies patch from Luis Rodriguez).