copyleft-next September 2012

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

11 participants
13 discussions

has anyone done a proof of concept permissive.next based?
by Luis Villa 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Just curious if anyone has thought about, looked at, or drafted a permissive license based on the structure, organization, and terminology of copyleft.next.

7 39

Update 2012-08-02
by Richard Fontana 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Here's an update of what's been going on with the copyleft-next draft. Deletion of dl-supp =================== The biggest change of the past week was my deletion of "dl-supp". In an earlier commit, I moved the "anti-Tivoization" provisions derived from the second part of GPLv3 section 6 into a supplementary document which an initial licensor could place on a new program. I now see no point in even having it as a supplement. Thus, copyleft-next has no anti-Tivoization provisions, and so the patch originally proposed by mcgrof (see <https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/12/401> ) has now effectively been applied. A lot of careful thought and discussion went into the corresponding provisions of GPLv3. They represent the result of a difficult compromise, and are motivated by policy goals for which I have deep personal sympathy. I contend that they are among the best-drafted parts of that license. The policy concern about locked-down consumer devices with effectively nonmodifiable GPL-licensed software has become more relevant in the years since those provisions were drafted. Yet, with respect to GPLv3, it has been my own intuition that few projects consciously choosing that license do so because of the anti-Tivoization provisions. I do not have the sense that the inclusion of these provisions in GPLv3 has had the effect of increasing users' freedom to modify software in consumer devices they own. To the contrary, it appears if anything to have motivated risk-averse companies to avoid use of GPLv3-licensed software. That is not dispositive but it is relevant. (There may be evidence to the contrary that I am unaware of.) I'm open to being convinced that this deletion should be reverted, but if no one successfully convinces me, it is likely to stay deleted. Part of what influences me is the availability of outbound (A)GPLv3 compatibility. As with the more obscure 'contractor' provision of GPLv3 section 2, those who care strongly about these provisions will be able to incorporate copyleft-next code in GPLv3-licensed works. Deletion of first part of anti-anti-circumvention provision =========================================================== While I currently continue to feel it is worthwhile for copyleft-next to explicitly address anti-circumvention law, I no longer consider the first paragraph of what was GPLv3 section 3 to be desirable. The basic idea here was the hope that courts would be influenced by a general declaration by the licensor that covered works are, in some sense fundamental to the license, not 'effective technological protection measures'. There is no known history of use of this provision by those defending against invocation of anti-circumvention law. This strikes me as being an inherently weak provision, but, the less weak one assumes it is, the more problematic it becomes from a free software perspective, since it approaches something like a field of use restriction. That certainly is not what the FSF intended, but that lack of intent does not make the discomfort go away. The reason for effectively two (or three, depending on how you look at it) anti-anti-circumvention provisions had to do with concerns about differences between US and EU approaches to anti-circumvention law. I consider it better to come up with one provision suitable for major jurisdictions in which the license is likely to be granted. A modification of the second part of what was GPLv3 section 3 is a better basis for such a provision. Further changes to termination ============================== In response to discussion on the mailing list, I have changed the EPL-inspired "reasonable time period" cure to a 30-day cure. I have also eliminated the relatively complex "automatic termination -> provisional automatic reinstatement -> permanent automatic reinstatement' feature which was originally added to GPLv3 section 8 in the final draft. I have explained this in a posting to this list made earlier today. Deletion of liberty-or-death example ==================================== This is a noteworthy change. If people think that we need the example given in GPLv3 section 12, let me know. - Richard

7 32

Compatibility with Eclipse Public License.
by Tom Marble 20 Nov '12

20 Nov '12

All: As Richard brought to my attention on identi.ca [0] there appears to be interest in making CLN (copyleft.next) compatible with EPL [1]. This is certainly an interesting goal and I'm wondering how the to comply with EPL in a CLN combined work? Historically this seems to have been "impossible" with GPL. AFAICT the incompatibility rises from the EPL choice of venue [2] which makes EPL not GPL compatible. Interestingly there seem to be claims that GPL is not EPL compatible [3][4][5] yet they all seem to hinge reflexively on the former case. Thus if EPL is CLN compatible then is there any stronger assertion we can make to assure that CLN is EPL compatible (specifically that a combined work under CLN is possible)? If such a solution is found it would give CLN another powerful advantage (along with deflating Proprietary Relicensing [6]) to combat the EPL reflexive assertions and (optionally via ws-supp) go further by copylefting network services (so-called "Web Services"). This would seem to be significant as it is not clear a developer today could deploy an EPL work (e.g. Clojure) combined with copyleft network services (e.g. under AGPLv3+) while complying with both licenses. At the risk of adding a second issue to this mail I am concerned that the "at no charge" qualification in ws-supp creates a loophole for additional albeit gratis conditions. Especially in the land of network services we are becoming increasingly aware of draconian and even abusive "Terms of Service" in exchange for gratis offerings. CLN seems to want to make conveying Software Freedom unconditional. Respectfully, --Tom [0] https://identi.ca/notice/95887462 [1] https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/license-draf… [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL [3] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE [4] https://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#Compatibility [6] https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/license-draf…

6 23

Update
by Richard Fontana 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

Here's an update on some of what's been going on in the copyleft-next draft since a week ago. One of the more significant changes is a substantial simplification of the termination section. For what are best summarized as "historical reasons", GPLv3 has effectively two cure provisions (interestingly, MPL 2.0's drafters chose to adapt much of the GPLv3 language). I've replaced it with one cure period and I just refer to a "reasonable time period" (cf. EPL 1.0) instead of the 30-day and 60-day periods of GPLv3. I'm not convinced that it's better not to have a fixed time period for cure, though I am convinced that a 30-day and a 60-day provision are not both needed. The structure of having automatic termination coupled with automatic reinstatement upon cure is preserved. This is unusual but it reflected concerns expressed by those active in GPL enforcement in Germany that automatic termination facilitated enforcement under German law. I have added a 'severability clause' which is a common feature of contracts and is found in a number of FLOSS licenses. The FSF opted not to have a severability clause in GPLv3 out of concern that it could lead to unpredictable judge-made alterations of the GPL that might frustrate basic policy objectives. The advantages of a severability clause seem to me to outweigh this concern. (GPLv2 has a limited severability clause in its 'liberty-or-death' section, which was removed from GPLv3.) I added a section at the beginning giving a 'general rule of construction', in some ways replacing one function the GPL Preamble ought to serve. The language here was adapted from the Preamble of Allison Randal's experimental short GPLv3 alternative which she drafted in 2007. I deleted the lengthy yet narrow provision I call, for lack of a better name, "child of downstream shielding" (GPLv3 section 11 paragraph 5). This is actually a very important provision for historical reasons, as a guide to understanding the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but I believe it has proven to have little value in the license itself. With this deletion, note that all the patent-related provisions of GPLv3 are now gone except for the Licensor's patent license grant (which has been restructured but, at least as I conceive it currently, is not different in scope from the patent license grant of GPLv3). Sadly, vanilla copyleft-next is still over 100 lines longer than the Apache License 2.0, but great progress has been made. :-) - Richard

5 14

Harvey Birdman cure
by Richard Fontana 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

Today I had a telephone conversation with Bradley Kuhn in which I noted that copyleft-next (vanilla version) was nearly ready for its 0.01 release, the main obstacle being that the definition of "System Library" remains undone. I suggested (though I wasn't quite this specific) that an explicit GPL-style system library carveout from "Corresponding Source" (or from "Derived Work") might not even be necessary. - RF

2 2

Update 2012-08-08
by Richard Fontana 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

Here's an update of what's been going on with the copyleft-next draft during the past week: While Bradley Kuhn's attempted resurrection of the anti-lockdown provisions has failed, I incorporated some of his suggestions for improvements in the definition of Corresponding Source (including a recent change that addresses the 'know-how' issue). I have put a "FIXME" for the System Libraries definition, as, to be frank, all definitions of this exception in all versions of the GNU GPL are suboptimal and if we wish to preserve this concept at all we need to start over. (Query whether it's actually needed anyway.) I deleted the 'rule of construction' in response to some criticism from Luis Villa, but I might restore it in response to some of his further comments on said deletion. I deleted the "inbound=outbound" provision adapted from the Apache License 2.0. I think this is difficult to draft *well* and may not be worth the effort. In many cases, contributions to a hypothetical copyleft-next project will be themselves 'Derived Works', and I have argued publicly in various talks and writings that FLOSS legal culture features the inbound=outbound custom anyway. The patent license grant is arguably broadened from GPLv3 by referring to 'Covered Works', although perhaps this is best seen as a clarification. In this I was influenced by the patent license grant in the Microsoft Public License. I considered and discussed on the mailing list a provision that would attempt to achieve compatibility with EPL. I ended up not including this, though I am still open to the idea. The anti-anti-circumvention waiver/disclaimer is clarified as something that the initial licensor and all 'Distributors' make. At least with the deletion of the first part of what was GPLv3 section 3, it was not clear that the initial licensor was making the same waiver/disclaimer as downstream parties. I applied Luis Villa's proposal to delete the written offer option from the object code distribution section. No one came to its defense on the mailing list. It is gone! In the past few days I've been experimenting, probably too much, with rearranging sections and subsections and typographical presentation and such. I deleted the anti-patent-litigation condition descended from the end of GPLv3 section 10 and replaced it with a provision closely modeled on the patent peace provision in MPL 2.0 (and put it in the termination section). I did so despite having some concerns about the breadth of the MPL provision. The old liberty-or-death provision is now reduced to one sentence in the no-further-restrictions section. I removed the ancient clarification that you can charge for distribution or services, as hopefully obvious by now. Apart from the draft, I made some modifications to the Harvey Birdman Rule (as it is again known). copyleft-next (ignoring ws-supp) continues to shrink: it is now at 270 lines and 1620 words. Of course, that's with the placeholder System Libraries definition.For comparison, the Apache License 2.0 is 202 lines and 1581 words. The Object Code Distribution section makes up about one quarter of copyleft-next - Richard

2 3

What do copyleft licenses gain from an acceptance clause?
by Bradley M. Kuhn 12 Oct '12

12 Oct '12

The following is a Harvey Birdman Rule conversation disclosure. At LinuxCon, Fontana and I were discussing his change in: commit 5823daf41d2bbb757e49b87b8e697fd793317019 Author: Richard Fontana <fontana2012(a)gmail.com> Date: 2012-07-05 18:44:45 -0400 Wherein he removes the acceptance clause entirely from copyleft-next. I argued briefly that perhaps the acceptance clause was useful, because it allowed a contract claim to more easily be brought when copyright infringement has occurred (basically as a secondary cause of action and/or legal claim, which could be argued in the alternative of copyright infringement). Ultimately, I agreed with Fontana that perhaps the acceptance provision isn't terribly useful from an enforcement perspective, because copyright law gives us all the tools we need, and we don't get specifically an additional enforcement claim simply because the entity engaged in activities governed by copyright law is reminded of their obligations and that they have no other license. However, this question probably deserves more study, as if there is some additional benefit that GPLv2 and GPLv3 families of licenses are getting from having an acceptance clause, then one should also be present in copyleft-next. In particular, Fontana notes that it might be possible that the acceptance clause is doing something different entirely unrelated to bringing forth a contract claim. -- -- bkuhn

3 3

best way to describe the contents of "Corresponding Source"
by Luis Villa 12 Oct '12

12 Oct '12

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn(a)ebb.org> wrote: > Luis Villa wrote at 22:57 (EDT) on Friday: >> That should be "any scripts..." not just "scripts", no? > > What is the point of adding 'any'? In this context, "any" would typically be read to mean '"every", with the additional implication that "every" was not used because there might not be such scripts. So long as no other part of the language does not explicitly require such a script to exist (which is currently the case), it is essentially the same as your proposed "all," because both "any" and "all" permit the case where no such scripts exist. I suggested this because Richard's original language, without either "any" or "all", was ambiguous as to whether or not the scripts were required, and my sense is that "any" (i.e., permitting there to be no scripts existing) was what was intended. If instead the license is intended to require that such scripts exist (which is perfectly reasonable) neither "any" nor "all" does that with 100% clarity. It would be much better to say something like "and must include the scripts and instructions necessary..." Or perhaps, better integrated into the rest of the definition "Corresponding Source" of a work means all the Source Code needed to build, compile, generate, modify, install, and run the work (to the extent those activities are meaningful for the work), * including scripts, instructions and configuration files that can be used [are used?] to perform those activities.* Obviously "are used" is extremely strong, as it prohibits having parallel build systems (one that can be used internally and one used by GPL licensees). I dislike "know-how" because it is insanely vague. Much better to list the things (like configuration files) that might contain such know-how. >> I've never been sure what "control" means in this context. Given that >> "perform" is probably broad enough to completely encompass "control," >> and given how comprehensive the list of tasks is now (it's arguably >> impossible to "perform" a build without some form of control) I'd be >> inclined to replace "control and perform" with simply "perform," or >> else give a more specific definition of "control" (e.g, by reference >> to configuration files.) > > I actually think "scripts used to control compilation and installation > of the executable" is effectively the same as what I wrote in my > original patch, but I've seen weasely lawyers argue otherwise to defend > their GPL-violating clients, so I > think we need as much text in there as possible. We should keep adding > verbs until we can't think of any more. I'm not necessarily against adding more verbs (especially in the first group (build, compile, etc.)) but I think the license is stronger when the drafters can clearly explain and describe what each verb they put in means :) Control has always been problematic this way because in common parlance scripts don't "control" - they perform or act, and configuration files or command-line options control. So I like the simple "perform" because it makes clear that the goal is to do that first set of actions, instead of burying it in other verbs. [Building on that last sentence, here's a radical rewriting of the sentence at issue, though I'm not 100% sure it works: "Corresponding Source" of a work means the Source Code of all materials needed to enable You to generate, install, and run the Received Work, including [but not limited to] scripts, instructions, and configuration files." I like this because it puts the emphasis on enabling the recipient's rights; if the recipient can't generate/install/run the work, then by definition they are not enabled and the requirement is not satisfied. I like "generate" because again it focuses on the outcome (that the work is generated from the Corresponding Source) rather than specific technical means of achieving that end (building, compiling). I put [but not limited to] in brackets because, while commonly used, it probably shouldn't be: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/02/including-without-limitation/ I don't like that this makes it theoretically impossible for a Distributor to know, a priori, if they are in compliance, since they don't know who "You" will be, or what capabilities You will have, but obviously that can be read as a feature and not a bug. :) ] Luis

3 4

Some initial comments on the copyleft-next draft
by Richard Fontana 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

Hi, During the past two weeks I've been working on modifying a document that started out as the text of the GNU GPLv3 but which is now quite different. I've had gracious help from several other people, but so far it's fair to say that most of the *policy* decisions underlying the various changes have come from me (IOW you can blame me for almost anything in the draft thus far if you disagree with it). I thought I'd provide a summary description of the more interesting aspects of what's been done. I deleted the following elements: * The Preamble and the 'How to Apply' appendix * The patent-related provisions that were introduced to GNU GPLv3 in the wake of the Microsoft/Novell deal of late 2006 * The old requirement to preserve legal notices in user interfaces * The acceptance provision (proposed by James Vasile) I removed the so-called 'anti-Tivoization' provisions of GNU GPLv3 section 6 out of vanilla copyleft-next and into a separate document currently called "dl-supp". I also added a separate document called "ws-supp" containing substantially similar text to the first half of the GNU AGPLv3 section 13. I don't think I really explained this in the commit logs so I'll go into that a bit here. The idea is that the vanilla version of copyleft-next won't have an 'Affero clause' (much as GNU GPLv3 doesn't) and, unlike GNU GPLv3, it won't have 'anti-Tivoization' provisions. Only the *initial* licensor (someone who's starting a new work from scratch) can choose to supplement copyleft-next with one of those "supp" documents. Currently, vanilla copyleft-next is incompatible with {copyleft-next + dl-supp} and {copyleft-next + ws-supp} (much like "GNU GPLv2-only" is incompatible with GNU GPL3) (i.e. there's nothing corresponding to GPLv3/AGPLv3 cross-compatibility), though this is just because I deferred thinking about whether there should be compatibility or not. I added a provision similar to Apache License 2.0 section 5 which is something like a built-in "inbound=outbound" contributor agreement for projects. (While I like this Apache feature very much it is a bit awkward in copyleft-next in its current form.) I added a provision to the basic copyleft clause that is designed to remove the copyleft requirement if the licensor separately offers a proprietary commercial version of essentially the same software. Maybe this isn't worthwhile, but it was something I'd wanted to experiment with trying to implement for a long time. I added a provision making copyleft-next relicensable under GNU GPLvn/AGPLv (the importance of this was impressed on me by Mike Linksvayer and it also addresses the FSF's reasonable concerns about GNU GPL derivatives). I added a "no trademark rights granted" clause (similar to what's in MPL and the Apache License 2.0). The old additional terms section has been drastically simplified and combined into the 'no-further-restrictions' section. I won't go into detail about the remainder of the changes in this message but I'd describe them generally as aimed at substantial simplification and normalization of language and structure. To take one example, the patent license grant of GNU GPLv3 is essentially the same but it is presented very differently: it now accompanies the basic copyright license grant in the 'basic permissions' section early in the license (this is more like how other free software/open source licenses with patent license grants are structured, and I think it may be easier to understand). I consider nothing of what I've done to be necessary or above criticism, but I think it gives you a sense of the direction I'm generally going in. This might be the most lightly trafficked mailing list in the entire legal history of free and open source software, but I'd be happy if it could serve as a forum for discussing, suggesting or criticizing ideas, and also as one way of submitting patches against the license draft. For those who don't know, currently I've been hosting the repository at https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next and mirroring at github https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next There's an IRC channel #copyleft-next on Freenode though so far the only discussion there has been bcotton and I talking about today's weather in Massachusetts. :-) - Richard

7 48

app stores and copyleft.next [was Re: has anyone done a proof of concept permissive.next based?]
by Luis Villa 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote: > On 09/27/2012 02:47 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote: > >> A license which is currently "missing" on that spectrum is a copyleft >> license compatible with the current popular app stores. >> >> The microsoft and apple app stores are fairly hostile toward free >> software developers, but they do have a considerable market share. So I >> think there are free software developers who would be interested in a >> license which achieves the aims of copyleft insofar that is allowed by >> the common app store agreements. >> >> Has anyone given this any thought? > > I haven't thought about it (until now) in connection with > copyleft-next, but this is a good suggestion to consider. The problem > seems analogous to the problem that the old GPL system library > exception was trying to solve (or clarify). For what it is worth, I don't think that this should be something "along the spectrum" of licenses; it should be possible even with strong copyleft licenses, assuming a "neutral" app store (i.e., one that does not impose additional technical or legal restrictions). But I also think copyleft.next takes care of this as already drafted. e.g., as far as I know, most app stores would: * comply with the first two points Sec. 4 of copyleft.next (which really should be (a) and (b) for ease of reference, Richard, not bullet points) * comply with Sec. 5 (the only arguable derived work the store is distributing is the binary; they're not otherwise modifying the work, so this should present no obstacle for the stores) * comply with Sec. 6 (note that this really isn't something you can "comply" with; it's not really a condition so I think perhaps the reference to it in the third bullet of Sec. 4 is incorrect?) * comply with Sec. 8(b), presuming that the person who uploads to the app store ensures that "clear directions" are present and that distribution from a web location is considered a "reasonably equivalent manner" to an app store (which IMHO it should be). Sec. 7 is the tricky one. As long as some requirement of that sort is maintained (which I think it must be, or else you open a gaping loophole in the license) then each app store has to be evaluated separately with regards to both their legal and technical policies, to see if they introduce further restrictions. But that's a concern for particular app stores, not the concept of app stores generally. Luis

2 3

Update 2012-09-19
by Richard Fontana 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

Here's an update on the copyleft-next draft: I merged some changes suggested by Mike Linksvayer to the outbound-(A)GPL-relicensing section and the later-license-versions section. I attempted to solve the problem of not knowing how to redefine the system library exception by modifying the definition of 'Separate Work'. The current draft of vanilla copyleft-next feels close to what I'm thinking of as an 0.01 release (notwithstanding the complete neglect of the AGPL-ish 'supp' file). Word counts: copyleft-next vanilla draft 1356, vs. GPLv3 5644, Apache License 2.0 1581. :-) - Richard

2 2

Update 2012-09-08
by Richard Fontana 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

I haven't had too much time to work on copyleft-next lately because of some recent work, vacation, and conference commitments. Here's most of what's happened since the previous update: Based on a discussion I had with Bradley Kuhn at LinuxCon about clarifying the Harvey Birdman Rule, a patch from Bradley was merged. I added a clarification to the GPLv2-ish 'Later License Versions' section to the effect that mere inclusion of a copy of "this" particular version of copyleft-next does not signify restriction to a particular license version for purposes of that section. This resolves an ambiguity that occasionally arises in GPL practice. If some code has a COPYING file containing GPLv2, but no other statement about license versions, is the author limiting downstream use (let's assume we know what that means) to GPLv2 or is this instead a case of what GPLv2 means by "the Program ... not specify[ing] a version number of this License"? copyleft-next says it's the latter: i.e., if the author wants to restrict downstream recipients to v1.0, the author must say so in some way more explicit than merely including a copy of copyleft-next v1.0. (That could be something quite minimal, like separately saying "Licensed under copyleft-next v1.0.") I've made a change to the Corresponding Source definition that Bradley might not like, but I assume he hasn't seen it yet. I've made it a bit less GPLv3-ish and a bit more GPLv2-ish in style, removing the set of verbs we see in the definition in GPLv3. The intention is not to alter the scope of what is Corresponding Source but to maximize clarity. I removed the reference to the Open Source Definition in the Proprietary-Relicensing section, because (to the extent I ever did) I no longer consider the Open Source Definition to be a useful definition of open source (a point I explained in my talk at LinuxCon). Finally, I have adopted MPL 2.0's approach in relaxing the requirement to include a copy of the license text to "inform[ing] recipients how they an obtain a copy". This was motivated by some recent discussion on the OSI license-discuss list, and also by a conversation I had at LinuxCon about a related issue. - Richard

5 10

Allow linking with any FSF/OSI approved license
by Richard Fontana 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

A GitHub person recently reported the following issue: - begin - IMHO one of the worst problems of the GPL is that it don't allows linking (static or dynamic) programs licensed under the GPL with some of the FSF/OSI approved licenses (OpenSSL,CDDL,PHP License...) I think it will be a good idea to add an exception to this license that allows linking the software with ANY of the licenses considered as free software license by the FSF/OSI while at the same time forbids to link the software with any proprietary license. Perhaps something like: In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of this program with any software licensed under a license that satisfies either the Free Software Definition, version 1.111, as published by the Free Software Foundation ("FSF") or the Open Source Definition, as published by the Open Source Initiative, and distribute linked combinations including the two. - end - - RF

6 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next September 2012