[copyleft-next] copyleft-next 0.2.0 released

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Fri Feb 22 04:06:07 UTC 2013


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:16:24PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Good news, everyone! 
> copyleft-next 0.2.0 has been released!
> 
> https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/raw/master/Releases/copyleft-next-0.2.0
> 
> A summary of the principal changes relative to 0.1.1 will follow in
> due course. 

Here is the promised summary.

* The term 'We' (the licensor) was changed to 'I'. The plurality of
  'We' seemed potentially more confusing. 

* 'Received Work' is now 'My Work'. 'Received' was a bit confusing
  since the licensed work associated with any given instance of
  copyleft-next coming from a particular licensor might not be the
  work 'You' receive downstream. (I also considered 'Provided Work'.)

* The copyright license grant in section 1 is more closely tied to
  (US) statutory language. This implements a pre-0.1.1 suggestion made
  by Pam Chestek.

* 'Distribute' is no longer a defined term.

* The child-of-fair-use clause was broadened by striking out the word
  'copyright'. This has been discussed recently on this list and I am
  considering deleting the clause altogether.

* What has sometimes been called the 'proprietary relicensing poison
  pill' has been revised. The new title better conveys the purpose of
  the provision. The provision is hopefully easier to understand now,
  though I am already thinking of further improvements, in part in
  response to comment made here. One notable change is that the effort
  to negatively define 'proprietary' was previously copyleft-next,
  GPLv2+/AGPLv3+, or an OSI-approved license; in 0.2.0 it is just
  distribution in a manner that fail to satisfy the OSD. Another
  notable change is that instead of saying copyleft provisions no
  longer apply, the provision now says that 'I' additionally license
  My Work under the Apache License 2.0.

* The anti-badgeware clarification adds 'powered-by statements' to the
  list of things that are not preservable 'Legal Notices'.

* In 0.1.1 there was a section indicating that Covered Works can be
  licensed out under GPLv2+/AGPLv3+. This is deleted and instead the
  general copyleft section states that, in addition to the basic
  requirement to license Derived Works under copyleft-next, You may
  additionally license the Derived Work under any version of the
  GPL. (I've explained why I don't consider it necesary to deal with
  the AGPL.) The approach taken here is influenced by MPL 2.0.

* In 0.1.1 there were two sections covering the conditions for
  distributing object code (one dealing with object code in
  'Products', the other with network-distributed Object Code). In
  0.2.0 these are merged into one section, with some overall
  simplification.

* The aforementioned section adds a declaration that downstream
  recipients are intended third party beneficiaries of this provision,
  'with the right to enforce its terms'. 

* In particular response to suggestions from Engel Nyst, and reviving
  an old idea I'd once tried to implement, 0.2.0 adds a condition that
  states that upstream contribution to 'Me' for incorporation in a
  Covered Work are, absent indication to the contrary, deemed licensed
  under copyleft-next. That is, this is a built-in inbound=outbound
  contribution policy, modeled on (though I think better drafted than)
  Apache License 2.0 section 5.

* A 'Copyleft Sunset' provision was added that essentially says that
  'My Work' is permissively-licensed after 15 years have passed.

* The MPL 2.0-style plain-text conscpicuousness solution for the
  disclaimer provisions (surrounding them with asterisks) has been
  replaced with a vertical wall of double asterisks on each side. 

* The definition of 'Derived Work' was tweaked a bit. 

* The 'legal entity' subdefinition in 'You' now also applies to 'Me'.


- RF



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list