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