[copyleft-next] Impending release of copyleft-next 0.4.0

Engel Nyst engel.nyst at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 18:28:11 UTC 2014


On 08/24/2014 01:03 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I see the point, but doesn't a similar issue exist under the GPL,
> with few real problems in practice? The only difference being that
> the FSF is playing two roles (that of license-drafter-in-the-past and
> [aspirationally] present-day-authority [on what is or isn't a
> GPL-compatible license, with the FSF never having purported to
> provide an exhaustive list]).

It's not the only difference at this time. In 0.3.0, copyleft-next has
modified the traditional no further requirements provision to accept
that a set of licenses don't pose further requirements. In the pre-0.4.0
draft, it has also modified the condition to be under this license, to
be interpreted loosely as necessary to accommodate these licenses.

By doing both adjustments, the freedoms granted for the overall
distribution depend now on these licenses giving these freedoms
themselves. That is ok, but with the change in the definition of
open/free licenses, there's no longer any check that they're giving them.

You have introduced in the text that CCS remains in full force. Right,
but CCS is not the only thing that an overarching copyleft guarantees
for the incorporated code.

How about, I don't know, redistribution? I don't see what enforces that
all the contained material is free to distribute. How about just about
any of the criteria that a free license must pass? If I'm missing
something, please point it out.

For example, I include a component with some proprietary license
(non-commercial), make it interact with the copyleft-next-ed code, and
distribute the result together under copyleft-next-except-where-nc. It
seems this derived work passes all criteria in the draft... Why can't I
do that with GPL? No further restrictions and license under this
license. Why can't I do that with 0.3.0? No further restrictions except
if FSF/OSI vetted.

> Or is this actually a problem with the GPL that a new copyleft
> license should fix?

I think copyleft-next has solved the problem of license incompatibility,
in the measure it was assumed to be in the nature of copyleft[1], in
0.3.0 already. The major change is possibly to no further restrictions
clause because after the change, the text implies or suggests that the
whole work being under this license should be read loosely, loose enough
that copylefts make the bar. The subsequent change to the license for
the whole work (2c) is consistent with this loose interpretation.

OTOH, the practice we see around GPL obviously doesn't show only issues
due to incompatibilities. There is also a lot of practice around it,
that interprets freedom-respecting software as acceptable; indeed, but
this practice was built due to the regulatory role of license
conditions. GPL can't be used with non-free software [and some free], so
yes, we'll see it with a (certain) number of free software licenses.

If we remove too much of what "license under this license"-and-friends
were doing, without enough conditions in their place, we end up with no
such regulatory role... that is, no copyleft to the extent of copyright.


[1]
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-August/000114.html

-- 
"Excuse me, Professor Lessig, may I ask you to sign this CLA, so we can
*legally* have your permission to distribute your CC-licensed works?"


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list