[License-review] Approval request for GG License 1.0

[Valentino Giudice]

Thank You, Engel Nyst!

I am going to edit the license in order to fix this and other defects.

Best regards.

2015-01-09 14:36 GMT+01:00 Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com>:

> Hello Valentino,
>
> Just one point on your license.
>
> On 12/30/2014 01:39 PM, Valentino Giudice wrote:
> >
> >
> > You must therefore delete any copy of this work and on any derivative
> > work you have.
>
> I don't think the deletion of any copy of the work should be a result of
> termination of the copyright license.
>
> Copyright covers actions like copying, distributing copies, modifying
> the work.
>
> It doesn't cover executing the software, or "using" it.
>
> In Europe it doesn't even cover giving to someone else the physical
> copy legally in your possession, now or in twenty years. If you acquire
> a cd with the software from a store, the copyright owner of the work on
> your cd cannot make you throw it to the trash. It's your cd. And since
> such actions, executing the software you got, or keeping your physical
> copy, or giving it to someone else are supposed to be beyond the reach
> of copyright, they are supposed to be beyond the reach of a copyright
> license.
>
> Similarly, you can think of a book. Once you bought it, it's your book.
> You may get no right to copy or distribute publicly copies of it (by
> default), but you always own that physical book. Distributing other
> copies and reading your own copy are two different and unrelated things.
> The publisher's "license" doesn't force you to burn your book.
>
> (unless you didn't acquire physical ownership, that is, you borrowed or
> rented it. Open source software - and in fact a lot of proprietary
> software as well - are not borrowed nor rented, though.)
>
> It may be more muddy in some part of the law, but not in open source
> licensing. There is no open source license that attempts to force you to
> delete your copy. There is no open source license that attempts to limit
> ANY private use (in colloquial parlance) for any purpose.
>
> I suggest to consider it carefully and remove the requirement to delete
> the copy from your license. The violators of your terms will no longer
> have rights like distribute/copy/modify. However, once they get the
> work, they can use it indefinitely.
>
> If you change your license on this point, you may note that it implies
> more changes all throughout the text. For example "owning a copy"
> doesn't require you to accept the license (in the preamble). "Using"
> doesn't either.
>
> > It is inspired to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
>
> CC-BY 3.0 doesn't require you to delete your copy.
>
> The grants in section 3 are those that may terminate in section 7a. That
> enumeration doesn't contain 'reading' or 'listening' or otherwise making
> use of the copy in your possession, it contains only particular actions:
> reproduce, distribute, publicly perform or create and reproduce
> adaptations.
>
>
> --
> Oracle corollary to Hanlon's razor:
> Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice.
> (~ adapted from Adam Borowski)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150109/5751deaf/attachment.html>