[copyleft-next] comments on 0.1.1

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Sun Feb 10 04:51:20 UTC 2013


On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:44:32PM -0600, Tom Marble wrote:
> I was thinking of requesting that commit messages contain
> rationale for changes and that individual lines could be tracked
> via git blame:
>   http://alblue.bandlem.com/2011/07/git-tip-of-week-assigning-blame.html

But isn't this what I've been doing, apart from the problem of not
using "--author" (IIRC)?

> While this is generally a good practice it does not lend itself
> to a format which is readily accessible by muggles. Instead it may be
> helpful to collect rationale from the FOSDEM presentation (which provided
> excellent background) as well as some sort of companion
> document which includes annotations on each section.

That's a good idea, at least in theory. I once suggested the FSF do
something like that for GPLv3 post-release, and seems akin to the
several 'rationale documents' that accompanied public GPLv3 drafts.
 
> Would there be a way to allow relicensing with the added
> restriction of ยง3?

Do you mean with the poison pill persisting in a downstream
relicensed-to-GPL universe?

I think not. For the usual case, this would seem not to
matter. Section 3 is primarily intended to be (in really a mostly
theoretical sense) a kind of self-imposed limitation applied by the
original copyright holder who does proprietary relicensing. Permission
to relicense under GPL is something given to downstream licensees. I
suppose that a downstream licensee has to choose between enjoying GPL
compatibility or being able to use the upstream code under a
noncopyleft license if the upstream licensor makes the mistake of
engaging in proprietary relicensing.

I say it's mostly theoretical because the purpose of the provision is
actually to deter upstream licensors from using copyleft-next for
proprietary relicensing. This is why it is very important to make the
provision easier to understand somehow. Actually the audience of the
provision is probably primarily lawyers (so it's important for the
provision to be easy for lawyers to understand). 

The more difficult case is the copyleft troll case which I mentioned
recently. In the scenarios I've heard about, I am not at all sure that
the copyleft troll isn't a downstream licensee. Here, you can imagine
that a copyleft troll could escape the effect of the poison pill by
relicensing to GPL. But that's okay. The world is no worse off than it
was before copyleft-next existed.

That said, the copyleft troll problem is probably much smaller.
 
> > It is not compatible with the EPL. But I've been seriously thinking
> > that the github person who suggested a far more liberal compatibility
> > policy than we have with GPL may be on the right track. I think
> > orthodox GPL compatibility doctrine may itself be a source of
> > competitive disadvantage for strong copyleft. 
> 
> While EPL compatibility would be very nice it should
> not come at the expense of weakening or adding loopholes
> to copyleft-next.

Right. I honestly don't know how to solve this problem yet. 

I have recently heard rumors of an EPL 2.0. Maybe it will be made
GPL-compatible.
 
- RF



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list