copyleft-next January 2013

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

11 participants
12 discussions

Question about section 11. Termination
by Joshua Gay 10 Feb '13

10 Feb '13

Let's say I lose my rights under §11 to the Covered Work. Could I ask a friend to give me a copy of the same Covered Work under the GNU GPL version 3 (via section 10) and then redistribute the covered work under the GNU GPL version 3? Maybe §11 could be explicit about what "new licenses" means, perhaps something along the lines of: "Termination of Your rights disqualifies You from receiving new licenses covering the Received Work (including any future version of this license or those listed in section 10 of this license)." Josh

6 23

FOSDEM talk and possible version release
by Richard Fontana 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

For anyone who'll be at FOSDEM, I am slated to give a talk on copyleft-next in the Legal Issues DevRoom (aka Legal and Policy Issues DevRoom) on Sunday (3 February). I've continued to think about releasing an official version of copyleft-next (most likely numbered 0.1.0) and might do so around the time of FOSDEM. - RF

7 22

Minor Merge Request
by Stephen Michael Kellat 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

I have filed a minor merge request to fix two sets of typographical issues that will improve the ability of the license text to be processed by applications like Pandoc and Enscript, among others. See: https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/28 Stephen Michael Kellat

3 2

HBR Cure: Oral Reading of 0.1.0
by Stephen Michael Kellat 28 Jan '13

28 Jan '13

On Saturday I engaged in discussion on Identica unilaterally with Richard Fontana as to whether or not there would be barriers to doing an outright reading of copyleft-next. Previously the production team at Erie Looking Productions produced a reading of the latest Ubuntu Code of Conduct as a readability test. It was noted that CCO would not be a barrier and that in theory nothing would stop proceeding. Following that I discussed with the engineer and producer at Erie Looking Productions the notion of doing this. After having done the reading of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, this was not dismissed out of hand and we proceeded to set this up. After some difficulty with the low-budget ereader that normally bears the speaking scripts for programs unfaithfully rendering text due to Pandoc issues, the engineer and I carried out a series of edits to ensure the license was faithfully and correctly read out. The end result can be found here: http://lisnews.org/listen_an_lisnewsorg_program_episode_230 Stephen Michael Kellat

2 1

copyleft-next 0.1.0 released
by Richard Fontana 28 Jan '13

28 Jan '13

I suspect a v0.1.1 will arrive soon. :) - RF

7 20

DATA×DATA project licensed under copyleft-next
by Kuno Woudt 27 Jan '13

27 Jan '13

Hello, I have just published some bits of code licensed under copyleft-next 0.1.0. For no other reason than it seemed fun to be the first :) (is this indeed the first project using the license?) Over the past week I wrote a very simple, experimental web analytics system. Google Analytics, Piwik, etc.. all track users, which is evil and also illegal in some parts of Europe unless the user has given some kind of consent. So I wrote a very minimal replacement which only captures the information I need as web developer (browser + version and screen resolution). Even this is arguably illegal under some implementations of e-Privacy directive 2009/136/EC without getting consent from visitors, but it is a lot closer to being in a grey area than Piwik and friends. Perhaps this approach is of interest to other free software / open source projects for whom real analytics is overkill. links: https://frob.nl/DATAxDATA/ https://gitorious.org/data-x-data/data-x-data/ -- kuno / warp.

2 1

license "governance"/interpretation?
by Luis Villa 27 Jan '13

27 Jan '13

Richard's recent post said the following about FSF, and commercial use of the license: >> Could you elaborate a bit on this? My sense is that the primary objection >> for commercial users of the license has to do with the nature of the >> copyleft rather than the specific language that implements the copyleft, so >> for *commercial* adoption I think the drafting question is definitely only >> marginal in effect. [Not to say a rewrite wouldn't help commercial >> adoption, but that it is far from the primary issue.] > I agree it is not the primary issue. I would also say that the > commercial objection to copyleft specifically has to do with > (sometimes severely-mistaken) perceptions of FSF-influenced > interpretation of the GPL (which copyleft-next implicitly accepts as > essentially correct from a policy standpoint). Putting aside whether or not the critique is correct, this begs the question: if copyleft-next accepts FSF policy as essentially correct[1] how will copyleft-next avoid creating similar perceptions? Simply by not being formally FSF-affiliated, or...? To be clear, I'm not arguing here for repudiation of FSF's policy, which I agree is by-and-large correct, just that if (1) FSF's policy creates a perception problem and (2) copyleft-next follows that policy then (3) how does copyleft-next plan to usefully differentiate itself from any perception problems caused by FSF's policies? Merely better branding, or some other substantive change (i.e., in governance, or policy for post-release interpretation, or...?) Luis

3 2

IRC logging bot for HBR compliance
by Tom Marble 18 Jan '13

18 Jan '13

All: We have been having some interesting discussions on #copyleft-next about technology things... And I asked: 07:11 < tmarble> of course now I'm worried about at what point we have a *substantive* discussion here that requires an HBR cure :) Later Ben said: 07:16 < bcotton> of course, there's no mention of IRC at all in CONTRIBUTING.md One view may be "the channel is public and that's enough". Another view may be... a logging bot which posts discussions on, say, copyleft-next.org may provide HBR absolution. Thoughts? --Tom

2 2

Issue tracking, etc. (was: FOSDEM talk and possible version release)
by Ben Cotton 18 Jan '13

18 Jan '13

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote: > In any case the issue remains in the nonexistent issue tracker. > While I don't hold the same position, I understand the objection of some who are opposed to using GitHub. Still, it seems the lack of an accepted issue tracker is a bit of a problem for us. At least some people seem to be using the GitHub tracker[1] currently, so can we consider that the official issue tracker until someone presents a more acceptable alternative? If someone wants to donate a small server somewhere, I expect there's sufficient skill on this list that we could run our own infrastructure (git repo, issue tracker of some kind, wiki(?), and mailing list) so as to be free of non-free providers and to be off the Fedora infrastructure, as Richard has previously said is a goal. [1] https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues -- Ben Cotton

2 2

HBR and private email discussions
by Richard Fontana 16 Jan '13

16 Jan '13

It has just occurred to me that the Harvey Birdman Rule [1] may have a bug in failing to explicitly address presumptively-private email conversations. The relevant part of the Rule currently says: Except in extraordinary cases, private telephone calls, private teleconferences and private in-person meetings shall not be used to discuss *substantive* development of this project. Should such private communications nevertheless occur, participants in such communications are expected to publish summaries of any relevant discussions in a suitable public forum. I am thinking of adding "private email discussions" (or rewording this plank of the Rule to clearly cover such discussions). This is in the spirit of another plank of the Rule: No private mailing lists (including but not limited to those governed by the so-called Chatham House Rule) will be used by this project. Public archiving of such mailing lists is strongly encouraged; however, archives are not mandatory and partial archiving is permitted. - RF [1] See https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/CONTRIBUTING…

4 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next January 2013