[copyleft-next] Inbound-outbound clause and licensor promise

Engel Nyst engel.nyst at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 16:17:38 UTC 2013


On 2/11/13, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:43:32PM +0200, Engel Nyst wrote:
>> I'd submit for discussion the (re)introduction of an inbound-outbound
>> clause for contributions, and the possibility to use it as the place where
>> the upstream licensor makes an explicit promise: to keep the software
>> under copyleft.
>
> Here's an idea for an alternative way to do it. It's kind of in line
> with the idea of getting rid of the "(A)GPL relicensing" section and
> just modifying the copyleft requirement clause for distributing
> Derived Works, to simplify the license structure (possibly at the
> expense of understandability though?).
>
> Define 'Patch' or 'Upstream Contribution' to mean something like a
> work You Distribute for inclusion in {something that would mean
> 'Covered Work that We would create} (with no explicit indication of
> licensing).
>
> Then, add this to the set of things that are 'Derived Works'. (Perhaps
> replace 'Derived Work' with some better term.) That's because
> sometimes what you submit upstream won't actually fall within that
> definition as it currently exists.
>
> Unfortunately, it's less obvious than your Apache-influenced
> solution.
>

Thank you for considering it and adding a contributions provision.
If I understand correctly, the current version is still Apache-influenced,
in this sense. (it states the default license)

I'd note a few small details on the current provision.
"To the extent of Your copyright in Your Patch" seems to say that
it applies only to original works (or to which "You" are copyright
holder). I wonder if this is necessary, because "You" could also
have the right from the author, to submit it freely under copyleft-next.

"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.

"You license it to Me under this license" seems to say that "You"
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.
Sorry for the redundant stating of this detail. (I have already noted
it on IRC). Just making sure to bring it to the mailing list.
To note, Ben Cotton has brought the point that strictly speaking,
the license is granted to those which receive the software in the
manner specified.
OTOH, I'd add, it's interesting that if the 'Patch' would have been
included in 'Derived Works', there wouldn't have been a special
position of 'Me' (as far as I can tell), not on the point of guaranteeing
to everyone licensing rights on contributor's code.

> A possible problem with both solutions, and I think the thing that
> ended up bothering me about simple reuse of the Apache language, is
> that 'We' aren't necessarily equivalent to the upstream project.  But
> 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 under
copyleft-next, then I'd expect 'Patches' to them to be under this default
license. I'm not sure that is problematic, but I probably misunderstand
the issue here.

Just a few notes, please note the IANAL obligatory disclaimer.
Thank you for the consideration.


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list