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
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.
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:
Stephen Michael Kellat
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.
-- kuno / warp.
Richard's recent post said the following about FSF, and commercial use of
>> 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,
>> for *commercial* adoption I think the drafting question is definitely
>> 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 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...?)
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.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Richard Fontana
> 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 currently, so can we
consider that the official issue tracker until someone presents a more
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.
It has just occurred to me that the Harvey Birdman Rule  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.