[copyleft-next] Comments on 0.1.1

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Mon Feb 11 03:20:49 UTC 2013


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

> Section 4 contains the following explanation:
> 
> | "Legal Notices" means copyright notices, license notices,
> |  license texts, and author attributions, but does not include logos,
> |  other graphical images or trademark legends.
> 
> While I find it useful to have the explanation in the paragraph,
> it seems inconsistent because all other definitions are at the end
> of the license.  Is there a reason this one is different?

No really good reason. I've struggled a bit (as the commit history
will show) over where to put the various definitions. 

A lawyer I know whose drafting style I like prefers to include
definitions as they are used (so that the reader doesn't have to
cross-reference a definitions section), particularly in something that
is meant to be easily consumable by non-lawyers. I tried that with
copyleft-next but for the most part it seemed too awkward.

If a term is only used in one section, the argument for putting the
definition in that section becomes stronger. That's probably the best
explanation I have (without going back to see what I actually did) for
why the definition is in the section, plus the fact that it's a fairly
short definition. I recall going back and forth as to whether to have
a defined term for 'Legal Notices' at all.

> Section 11 says "unless You cure".  I was going to propose a simpler
> term than "cure" until I realized this is actually a legal term:
> http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/cure.html
> Given that you're looking for contributions from developers and hoping
> that developers will read the license, would it make sense to maintain
> a list of "special" words (e.g. in the FAQ).  This way, people know
> a) not to replace them in patches and b) can read about their precise
> legal meaning.

Actually the concern about the term (or, rather, the lack of any
explicit guidance in the license on what it takes to cure) is quite
legitimate. I'd put that one in the Nonexistent Issues
Tracker. There's a FAQ item on GPLv3 'cure' provided by the FSF,
though I find it somewhat tautological:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Cure 
Granted, 'cure' is commonly used in contracts without any particular
definition, and it sees similar undefined use in some open source
licenses.

> Definition of "Corresponding Source":
> |    provided under (i); and (iii) a list clearly identifying all Separate
> |    Works (other than those provided in compliance with (ii)) that were
> 
> When I read this, I was wondering whether this should say something like
> "Separate Works (including a clear identification, such as version number)"

Possibly. This is where Bradley's input could be helpful. In the
'specified proprietary compiler' example I certainly was imagining a
version number (if the compiler is commercially available, at least)
as being part of what 'specified' would include.

> |    specifically used in building and installing the Covered Work (for
> |    example, a specified proprietary compiler including its version
> |    number). Corresponding Source must be machine-readable.
> 
> And here I'm wondering whether the "for example, ..." should be removed
> and moved to the FAQ instead.  OTOH, it's nice to have a clear example
> in the license itself.

I knew of that as the canonical example of what sort of 'Separate
Work' might be provided. (See, e.g., 
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html )

I wanted to give some kind of clarification in the license itself,
because this is one of the unusual places where it actually goes
further than the GPL strictly requires, and because I'm concerned that
there would be a 'where do we stop?' problem. 

Here too Bradley's input would be useful.

> I've also attached some patches that fix various formatting issues.  I
> didn't want to send a pull request as you probably disagree with some
> of the changes.  You can apply those you like with "git am", or I can
> send a pull request.

I have to figure out how to use 'git am' first but this is a good
opportunity to learn. :)

Thanks, and welcome!

- RF



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list