[License-review] Approval request for GG License 1.0

Wed Feb 4 20:00:25 UTC 2015

P.S: Is there some problem in the mailing list? I have recived your mail
right today, but its date seems to be January the 9th…

2015-02-04 20:58 GMT+01:00 Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudice at vallauri.edu
>:

> Thank You again!
>
> Derivative work is a term that the law defines, and typically not a
>> license. So I'd suggest to use another term here, for this concept
>> of covered material you're trying to call derivative work.
>
> The law is not the same in every country.
> I believe that's why a lot of licenses state the definition of well-known
> terms (just like "License", "Licensor" and "Legal Entity", defined in the
> Apache License).
>
> Removing components can result in no copyrightable component left over.
>> Aggregation with other works can refer to different works on a CD.
>> None of these two are derivative works of the original, and the attempt
>> to extend your license to them doesn't comply with OSD 9.
>
> I guess I shall remove this part.
>
> All these informations are informations you can write in a notice and
>> then the license can require that notice to be preserved.
>> For example there's no need to say in the license "title of this work",
>> when you can just add title of the work in your notice. Do you disagree,
>> do you try to achieve more than that, with this paragraph?
>
> That could be an alternative.
> But a notice is only a plaintext, this is a group of pieces of information.
> If you are only required to provide some information, you are more free
> about how to provide it.
> So the license would actually be different.
>
> Why do you call attribution "citation"? I didn't see anything in the
>> following definition that corresponds to the common meaning of citation.
>
> I have been told this problem.
> That's why I removed the word "citation" in the second text.
>
> Why is this an "exception"? It doesn't seem to say anything else than
>> the license already said.
>
> Not really.
> Without this clause when you distribute a binary version of a work you
> would be required to specify it is not the original work.
>
> Same, this repeats what the license already said. If you think it didn't
>> say it clearly enough before, then you can fix that.
>
> Without this exception the license would be incoherent (the sections 3.A
> and 3.B could conflict).
>
> Well, I used to think CC's advice on this would better be followed, but
>> I'm not so sure anymore. Why do you think you can't use CC-BY 3.0, what
>> points exactly don't fit your wishes?
>
> Both creativecommons.org and gnu.org advice not to use Creative Commons
> license for software (except for CC0, of course).
>
>
> This is a problem. Do you have software or intend to write, to place
>> under this license?
>
> There's actually a library I have licensed under GG.
> But there's no official distribution of it.
>
>
> About the Apache License: it is similar to the GG License, but not
> equivalent.
>
> Thank You again!
>
> 2015-01-09 19:01 GMT+01:00 Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello Valentino,
>>
>> In this message I'll pass through the text and your answers. Not
>> everything below affects approval, there are also other questions or
>> comments.
>>
>> On 12/30/2014 01:39 PM, Valentino Giudice wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > c) "Derivative work": Any work obtained by applying "transformation
>> > processes", either manual or automatic, to this work. Those
>> > transformation processes includes, but are not limited to, editing,
>> > adaptations, obfuscations, compiling, joining or aggregation with
>> > other works, inclusion in other works and removing components that
>> > are parts of this work. Any work obtained by applying transformation
>> > processes to a derivative work shall be considered a derivative work
>> > itself
>>
>>
>> Derivative work is a term that the law defines, and typically not a
>> license. So I'd suggest to use another term here, for this concept
>> of covered material you're trying to call derivative work.
>>
>> You can also search the web for the ongoing discussions on rewriting
>> some copyright related laws in European Union and add your suggestions
>> there. For example, do you think the law should define it for software
>> in software terms? Or do you think there is something you're trying to
>> express which is the job of a license?
>>
>> > joining or aggregation with other works [...] removing components
>> > that are parts of this work
>>
>>
>> Removing components can result in no copyrightable component left over.
>> Aggregation with other works can refer to different works on a CD.
>>
>> None of these two are derivative works of the original, and the attempt
>> to extend your license to them doesn't comply with OSD 9.
>>
>> > a) Attribution (or "Citation")
>>
>>
>> Why do you call attribution "citation"? I didn't see anything in the
>> following definition that corresponds to the common meaning of citation.
>>
>> > If you distribute this work or any derivative work you must provide,
>> > with the distributed work, any supplied piece of information among
>> > the following ones: the author's name (or pseudonym, if applicable),
>> > copyright notice of the author on this work, the title of this work
>> > and, if you are distributing a derived work, information about how
>> > to obtain this work. You must also make clear this work is released
>> > under this license, providing a full copy of this text or via a
>> > hyperlink (or URI).
>>
>>
>> All these informations are informations you can write in a notice and
>> then the license can require that notice to be preserved.
>>
>> For example there's no need to say in the license "title of this work",
>> when you can just add title of the work in your notice. Do you disagree,
>> do you try to achieve more than that, with this paragraph?
>>
>> > if the distributed work is available in the binary form, attribution
>> > in the source code is not enough
>>
>>
>> Check out Apache License 2.0 (AL2.0) [1]. Do you think your license
>> requires more than AL2.0 does, on this point?
>>
>> > b) Removing (or changing) the attribution: If required by the author
>> > of this work, you must remove the information the section 3.a
>> > ("Attribution") require you to provide. Note that this removal is not
>> > allowed if not expressly required or approved by the author of this
>> > work. Also, if required by the author, you must replace, in the
>> > attribution, the name of the author with a pseudonym or vice versa.
>>
>>
>> I don't remember seeing this requirement in a software license. It's
>> possible to have it, though, without running afoul of the OSD.
>>
>> > c) Stating changes: If you distribute a derivative work, it must be
>> > clear (and, so, expressly specified) that it is a derivative work and
>> > not the original work.
>>
>>
>> See Apache License 2.0. Same question, do you think it does less than
>> what you're trying to achieve by this?
>>
>> > 5) Exceptions: This license is just an agreement between you and the
>> > author of this work. By means of this license, the author allows you
>> > to use this work under the terms of this license. See the section 2
>> > ("Grants"). This work could be provided also under other licenses,
>> > more or less restrictive. The author of this work could (upon request
>> > or not) allow a use of this work contrary to this license, especially
>> > to the section 3 ("Obligations and restrictions"). Such a permission
>> > could be provided only to a few individuals and shall be considered
>> > an exception.
>>
>>
>> This seems a no-op, for a license based on copyright. CC licenses
>> contain similar paragraphs, but I don't see what effect they really
>> have, other than educative. What do you think they add?
>>
>> > Also, this license states the following exceptions: a) The section
>> > 1.c ("derivative work") establishes that the result of a compilation
>> > process shall be considered a derivative work and the section 3.c
>> > establishes that when you distribute a derivative work, you must
>> > specify that it is a derivative work and not this work. This is not
>> > required if the derivative work has been made only by compiling this
>> > work (and without any other transformation process). See the section
>> > 1.b ("This work").
>>
>>
>> Why is this an "exception"? It doesn't seem to say anything else than
>> the license already said.
>>
>> > b) Any removal of parts of the attribution (or of the full
>> > attribution) required by the section 3.b ("Removing or changing the
>> > attribution") shall not be considered a violation of the section 3.a
>> > ("Attribution").
>>
>>
>> Same, this repeats what the license already said. If you think it didn't
>> say it clearly enough before, then you can fix that.
>>
>> > It is inspired to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported,
>> > which, unfortunately, is not available for software (quote from the
>> > Creative Commons website: "We recommend against using Creative
>> > Commons licenses for software"). The GG1 license is intended to bring
>> > the principles of the CC-BY 3.0 license in the world of software.
>>
>>
>> Well, I used to think CC's advice on this would better be followed, but
>> I'm not so sure anymore. Why do you think you can't use CC-BY 3.0, what
>> points exactly don't fit your wishes? If there is something, then again,
>> why doesn't AL2.0 do it?
>>
>> > The most similar license is, of course, the Creative Commons
>> > Attribution license itself (version 3.0), but it is not an OSI
>> > license.
>>
>>
>> Your license differs in several points from CC-BY 3.0, as noted, apart
>> from the wording, and those points may make your license not compliant.
>>
>> > The most similar OSI-approved license is probably the MIT license.
>> > The GG license is different because it requires a different type of
>> > attribution (and it provides more information about it). Also, its
>> > clauses are more precise.
>>
>>
>> See above about AL2.0.
>>
>> > The GNU Lesser General Public License shall also be compared to GG1.
>> > They are quite similar and LGPL is not a copyleft license. But the
>> > GG license requires a stronger type of attribution.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're saying LGPL is not a copyleft license. Is this a typo, or how do
>> you define copyleft to conclude that LGPL is not a copyleft license?
>>
>> > Unfortunately, since I am not a lawyer, no legal analysis is
>> > available
>>
>>
>> I think not making a legal analysis is not a problem in this case.
>> (Others' opinion may, and will, vary.)
>>
>> However, there are related problems, such as the attempt to define
>> derivative work.
>>
>> > *Earlier public discussions* Unluckily, there is no public discussion
>> > about this license (as far as I know).
>>
>>
>> This is a problem. Do you have software or intend to write, to place
>> under this license?
>>
>> The point of this question is that when you write a license alone or
>> mainly you, it's very likely the license will be designed to serve only
>> you and not a community.
>>
>> You could propose it to your friends, colleagues, or the internet. You
>> can then fix it, before submitting another version for approval, or you
>> can find out whether there is any interest (maybe there is, maybe there
>> isn't any), or you might find out that there are already licenses who
>> fulfill these wishes fairly well.
>>
>> > I do not know whether I have been able to present this license well
>> > enough or not
>>
>>
>> What I didn't quite understand, is what exactly is important to you and
>> other (OSI approved) licenses don't do.
>>
>> Except removing attribution per request, but why is that important for
>> software? You already have the requirement to mark a derivative as
>> distinct from the original.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom
>> works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150204/5ffaf178/attachment.html>