[copyleft-next] comments on 0.1.1

Tom Marble tmarble at info9.net
Fri Feb 8 22:40:12 UTC 2013


All:

Upon review of a recent release (0.1.1) I am wondering the following:

1. Will there be a FAQ?
   If there were a "place" to put explanations it may facilitate concision.
   There is precedent with the FSF FAQ's.

   BFDL mentions a FAQ in slide 22 (see question 8 below).

2. Is the rationale for design decisions captured explicitly?
   The mailing list has provided a great deal of clarification
   regarding goals, approaches and thinking.  However searching
   the mailing list for thinking on a specific point may
   be difficult. Is there a convention, for example,
   that changesets should document the rationale for
   changes on the affected lines?  Short of having
   a good memory on the "oral tradition" of the license
   evolution would commit messages or any other approach
   answer the question "what is the point *that* phrase?"
   or "why did the BFDL choose this solution among alternates?"?

3. Why list in §10 specific license compatibility?
   In fact this is is more license *morphing* than compatibility.
   If, for example, copyleft-next is intended to plug
   loopholes of AGPL then does not §11 preserve such
   loopholes (through morphing)?

4. Is copyleft-next compatible with the EPL?
   This question is a troll.

5. Compliance freshness date encourages prompt remedies?
   Is the goal of §11.a to encourage coming in to compliance
   quickly else requiring You to negotiate a new license with Us?
   In other words downloading a new copy of the "Covered Work"
   does not reset the clock on a terminated license?

6. Does the definition of "Corresponding Source" combined with §7
   effectively form an anti-lockdown provision?
   A Product shipping with Corresponding Source yet not runnable
   by rebuilding the Source (due to, for example, the lack of a certain
   cryptographic signature) would withhold freedom #1.
   It is not obvious that the interpretation of copyleft-next
   could simultaneously support lockdown and qualify
   as a Free Software license by supporting all four freedoms.
   Certain developers may believe there is a solution in
   explicitly allowing key replacement
   (such that private key material need not be disclosed).

7. What triggers derivation vs. aggregation?
   For the purpose of understanding the applicability of §5
   is there a "bright line" test to distinguish aggregation?
   For example, if Object Code from the Covered Work is
   linked with a Separate Work is the result a Derived Work?
   Or if Object Code operates in conjunction with a Separate Work
   over a network connection is the result a Mere Aggregation?

8. Based on the FOSDEM presentation
   https://fosdem.org/2013/schedule/event/copyleft_next/
   is the choice of a Hyena as a mascot an allusion
   to the unfortunate occurrence of tribal infighting (cannibalism?)
   in Free Software communities (first mentioned in a blog
   post long ago by Mark Shuttleworth)?

9. Proprietary relicensing deflation loophole
   Why offer a loophole of one year in §3 before
   deflation kicks in?

10. Getting to 201 lines
    All the metrics of copyleft-next are currently meeting
    objectives, except for line count.  How can we best
    get down to 201 lines?  Do we really need decorations
    for §13 and §14?  That may be acceptable if it is
    an alternative for SCREAMING in all caps.  Perhaps
    limiting decorations to the margins would eliminate
    8 lines?

11. Will copyleft-next* (i.e. copyleft-next or copyleft-next-ns)
    be silent on data or try to incorporate the spirit of the
    Franklin Street Statement?

Regards,

--Tom



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list