[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