[License-review] Approval request for GG License 1.0

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Thu Feb 5 00:16:11 UTC 2015


license-review has been under moderation for a long
time. Unfortunately those of us who administer and moderate the list
(which, like license-discuss, also gets tons of spam) haven't been
super-diligent in attending to the administrative queue. Sorry.

I don't recall the specific history behind the decision to moderate
postings of list subscribers though I remember there being some
problematic posters. Possibly that should be revisited. 

Richard


On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 09:00:25PM +0100, Valentino Giudice wrote:
> 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
>    
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review




More information about the License-review mailing list