[License-review] Request for approval of the Non-Coercive Copyleft Licence (NCCL) 1.0

[Kevin Fleming]

Is it practical for a license to be considered for 'open source' usage if
the license text implies that there is a single copyright holder/licensor
(there are multiple references to 'I' in this license)? How would this be
expected to work if someone produces a Derived Work and distributes it? Who
is 'I' in that situation?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:29 AM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Tim Makarios scripsit:
>
> > If you rely on this licence for your right to distribute a Derived Work,
> > you must give back to the community by agreeing that the Derived Work is
> > governed by this version of the NCCL or substantially similar terms,
> > without adding further restrictions to the rights provided.
>
> I recommend that so as not to create a sealed-off software commons,
> you also allow derived works to be licensed under the GPL v3 or under
> both licenses.  I make this recommendation whenever a new copyleft
> license is proposed.
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper] once more, I will be downcoming
> and somebody will be outgoing.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.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/20150720/e084f5c3/attachment.html>