On 2/23/13, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 06:17:38PM +0200, Engel Nyst wrote:
> "If You distribute a work to Me specifically for inclusion in or
> modification of a Covered Work" - does this intend to say "If You
> distribute a work to Me specifically for inclusion in a Covered Work,
> including a modification of a Covered Work"? But it might be only me
> that finds the phrasing a bit odd.
As I think I noted I wrote this up rather quickly since I wanted it in
the 0.2.0 release, so I'm sure the phrasing can be improved.
One issue I was thinking about was that a 'Patch' might not be a
'Derived Work' (as currently defined). The problem here in part is
something I'd noted (at least to myself) much earlier, that there's no
obvious simple way to define what a 'project' is. A project might
consist of multiple separate and independent works from even a strong
Not that the current phrasing you have pointed to necessarily
addresses that problem in a non-suboptimal way.
I think you may be saying that you can't conceive of any form of
'modification' that would not consist of 'inclusion' of the
'Patch'. That may be right.
Well, I'm sorry, I gave some time to think of this (though I didn't really
have time) and I still don't have some sort of proposal nor (real) answer
to the note.
I admit the term 'modification' mostly maps mentally to me to a MPL
sense 'modification'. So to a subset of Derived Works.
(therefore unlicensed patches to copylefted files are quite reasonably
licensed already under copyleft-next, proprietary relicensing potential
There are also the cases of 'Derived Works' which are not a
in MPL sense.
There are also the cases of 'Patches' which are entirely not 'Derived
Works', or contain code not 'Derived'.
And, as pointed out in another discussion, it might be worth taking
into account 'Patches' to FOSS-licensed files. (or compatible-licensed
files.). If this is wanted, of course.
> "You license it to Me under this license" seems to say
> license it "only to Myself". For example, if the contribution policy
> has public merge/pull requests, then this wording seems to say
> that "I" need to take action (i.e. accept it, sublicense it), before its
> license is granted to everyone. Which is counter-intuitive, I'd say,
> since the conditions under which the default license is granted are
> already fulfilled by the submission action.
I understand the point, and I think your concern would be addressed by
getting rid of 'to Me'. Since the "I-to-You" copyleft condition
doesn't say "I license *to You*" (it has the same nonspecificity that
all versions of the GPL have had -- the GPL having been specifically
conceived as a license 'to the general public'), there's no reason I
can see why this provision has to be nonsymmetrically specifically a
license from You to Me.
/me wonders if we are entering Martin Buber territory. :)
Thank you for addressing it! :)
> > A possible problem with both solutions, and I think the
> > ended up bothering me about simple reuse of the Apache language, is
> > that 'We' aren't necessarily equivalent to the upstream project.
> > maybe that isn't really a significant problem. No one seems to worry
> > about it in the case of the Apache License, and even the ASF appears
> > to rely on the existence of this clause to justify its non-use of a
> > CLA for certain classes of contributions.
> I'm not sure I understand the problem: if "We" develop a derivative
> copyleft-next, then I'd expect 'Patches' to them to be under this
> license. I'm not sure that is problematic, but I probably misunderstand
> the issue here.
The issue is, in real life, are You actually submitting Your Patch to
any of the "Me's" You're getting licenses from. Sometimes yes (maybe
There could be value in having this provision in even if it is not
really possible to solve that problem.
I thought that's a feature, not a bug. :)
"I" am not working under other guidelines than "You", "I"
follow the same
process, and "I" offer the same rights as "You", with regards to the