[License-review] Approval request for GG License 1.0
Luis Villa
luis at lu.is
Thu Feb 5 01:13:52 UTC 2015
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
wrote:
> 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.
>
Combination of problematic posters + very off-topic posting, on a list that
we deliberately try to keep lower-volume so that professionals who are
sensitive to their time will stay subscribed.
Open to saying that the experiment has failed because of the lack of
moderators, though I did have several volunteers when I called for them
earlier this year (and then failed to even have time to make the mods! :(
Luis
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bfe00168/attachment.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list