<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra">On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Richard Fontana <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org" target="_blank">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">license-review has been under moderation for a long<br>
time. Unfortunately those of us who administer and moderate the list<br>
(which, like license-discuss, also gets tons of spam) haven't been<br>
super-diligent in attending to the administrative queue. Sorry.<br>
<br>
I don't recall the specific history behind the decision to moderate<br>
postings of list subscribers though I remember there being some<br>
problematic posters. Possibly that should be revisited.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br><br></div><div>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! :(<br></div><div><br></div><div>Luis<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
Richard<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 09:00:25PM +0100, Valentino Giudice wrote:<br>
> P.S: Is there some problem in the mailing list? I have recived your mail right<br>
> today, but its date seems to be January the 9th…<br>
><br>
> 2015-02-04 20:58 GMT+01:00 Valentino Giudice <<a href="mailto:valentino.giudice@vallauri.edu">valentino.giudice@vallauri.edu</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Thank You again!<br>
><br>
><br>
> Derivative work is a term that the law defines, and typically not a<br>
> license. So I'd suggest to use another term here, for this concept<br>
> of covered material you're trying to call derivative work.<br>
><br>
> The law is not the same in every country.<br>
> I believe that's why a lot of licenses state the definition of well-known<br>
> terms (just like "License", "Licensor" and "Legal Entity", defined in the<br>
> Apache License).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Removing components can result in no copyrightable component left over.<br>
> Aggregation with other works can refer to different works on a CD.<br>
> None of these two are derivative works of the original, and the attempt<br>
> to extend your license to them doesn't comply with OSD 9.<br>
><br>
> I guess I shall remove this part.<br>
><br>
><br>
> All these informations are informations you can write in a notice and<br>
> then the license can require that notice to be preserved.<br>
> For example there's no need to say in the license "title of this work",<br>
> when you can just add title of the work in your notice. Do you<br>
> disagree,<br>
> do you try to achieve more than that, with this paragraph?<br>
><br>
> That could be an alternative.<br>
> But a notice is only a plaintext, this is a group of pieces of information.<br>
> If you are only required to provide some information, you are more free<br>
> about how to provide it.<br>
> So the license would actually be different.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Why do you call attribution "citation"? I didn't see anything in the<br>
> following definition that corresponds to the common meaning of<br>
> citation.<br>
><br>
> I have been told this problem.<br>
> That's why I removed the word "citation" in the second text.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Why is this an "exception"? It doesn't seem to say anything else than<br>
> the license already said.<br>
><br>
> Not really.<br>
> Without this clause when you distribute a binary version of a work you<br>
> would be required to specify it is not the original work.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Same, this repeats what the license already said. If you think it<br>
> didn't<br>
> say it clearly enough before, then you can fix that.<br>
><br>
> Without this exception the license would be incoherent (the sections 3.A<br>
> and 3.B could conflict).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Well, I used to think CC's advice on this would better be followed, but<br>
> I'm not so sure anymore. Why do you think you can't use CC-BY 3.0, what<br>
> points exactly don't fit your wishes?<br>
><br>
> Both <a href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_blank">creativecommons.org</a> and <a href="http://gnu.org" target="_blank">gnu.org</a> advice not to use Creative Commons<br>
> license for software (except for CC0, of course).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This is a problem. Do you have software or intend to write, to place<br>
> under this license?<br>
><br>
> There's actually a library I have licensed under GG.<br>
> But there's no official distribution of it.<br>
><br>
><br>
> About the Apache License: it is similar to the GG License, but not<br>
> equivalent.<br>
><br>
> Thank You again!<br>
><br>
> 2015-01-09 19:01 GMT+01:00 Engel Nyst <<a href="mailto:engel.nyst@gmail.com">engel.nyst@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Hello Valentino,<br>
><br>
> In this message I'll pass through the text and your answers. Not<br>
> everything below affects approval, there are also other questions or<br>
> comments.<br>
><br>
> On 12/30/2014 01:39 PM, Valentino Giudice wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > c) "Derivative work": Any work obtained by applying "transformation<br>
> > processes", either manual or automatic, to this work. Those<br>
> > transformation processes includes, but are not limited to, editing,<br>
> > adaptations, obfuscations, compiling, joining or aggregation with<br>
> > other works, inclusion in other works and removing components that<br>
> > are parts of this work. Any work obtained by applying transformation<br>
> > processes to a derivative work shall be considered a derivative work<br>
> > itself<br>
><br>
><br>
> Derivative work is a term that the law defines, and typically not a<br>
> license. So I'd suggest to use another term here, for this concept<br>
> of covered material you're trying to call derivative work.<br>
><br>
> You can also search the web for the ongoing discussions on rewriting<br>
> some copyright related laws in European Union and add your suggestions<br>
> there. For example, do you think the law should define it for software<br>
> in software terms? Or do you think there is something you're trying to<br>
> express which is the job of a license?<br>
><br>
> > joining or aggregation with other works [...] removing components<br>
> > that are parts of this work<br>
><br>
><br>
> Removing components can result in no copyrightable component left over.<br>
> Aggregation with other works can refer to different works on a CD.<br>
><br>
> None of these two are derivative works of the original, and the attempt<br>
> to extend your license to them doesn't comply with OSD 9.<br>
><br>
> > a) Attribution (or "Citation")<br>
><br>
><br>
> Why do you call attribution "citation"? I didn't see anything in the<br>
> following definition that corresponds to the common meaning of<br>
> citation.<br>
><br>
> > If you distribute this work or any derivative work you must provide,<br>
> > with the distributed work, any supplied piece of information among<br>
> > the following ones: the author's name (or pseudonym, if applicable),<br>
> > copyright notice of the author on this work, the title of this work<br>
> > and, if you are distributing a derived work, information about how<br>
> > to obtain this work. You must also make clear this work is released<br>
> > under this license, providing a full copy of this text or via a<br>
> > hyperlink (or URI).<br>
><br>
><br>
> All these informations are informations you can write in a notice and<br>
> then the license can require that notice to be preserved.<br>
><br>
> For example there's no need to say in the license "title of this work",<br>
> when you can just add title of the work in your notice. Do you<br>
> disagree,<br>
> do you try to achieve more than that, with this paragraph?<br>
><br>
> > if the distributed work is available in the binary form, attribution<br>
> > in the source code is not enough<br>
><br>
><br>
> Check out Apache License 2.0 (AL2.0) [1]. Do you think your license<br>
> requires more than AL2.0 does, on this point?<br>
><br>
> > b) Removing (or changing) the attribution: If required by the author<br>
> > of this work, you must remove the information the section 3.a<br>
> > ("Attribution") require you to provide. Note that this removal is not<br>
> > allowed if not expressly required or approved by the author of this<br>
> > work. Also, if required by the author, you must replace, in the<br>
> > attribution, the name of the author with a pseudonym or vice versa.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I don't remember seeing this requirement in a software license. It's<br>
> possible to have it, though, without running afoul of the OSD.<br>
><br>
> > c) Stating changes: If you distribute a derivative work, it must be<br>
> > clear (and, so, expressly specified) that it is a derivative work and<br>
> > not the original work.<br>
><br>
><br>
> See Apache License 2.0. Same question, do you think it does less than<br>
> what you're trying to achieve by this?<br>
><br>
> > 5) Exceptions: This license is just an agreement between you and the<br>
> > author of this work. By means of this license, the author allows you<br>
> > to use this work under the terms of this license. See the section 2<br>
> > ("Grants"). This work could be provided also under other licenses,<br>
> > more or less restrictive. The author of this work could (upon request<br>
> > or not) allow a use of this work contrary to this license, especially<br>
> > to the section 3 ("Obligations and restrictions"). Such a permission<br>
> > could be provided only to a few individuals and shall be considered<br>
> > an exception.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This seems a no-op, for a license based on copyright. CC licenses<br>
> contain similar paragraphs, but I don't see what effect they really<br>
> have, other than educative. What do you think they add?<br>
><br>
> > Also, this license states the following exceptions: a) The section<br>
> > 1.c ("derivative work") establishes that the result of a compilation<br>
> > process shall be considered a derivative work and the section 3.c<br>
> > establishes that when you distribute a derivative work, you must<br>
> > specify that it is a derivative work and not this work. This is not<br>
> > required if the derivative work has been made only by compiling this<br>
> > work (and without any other transformation process). See the section<br>
> > 1.b ("This work").<br>
><br>
><br>
> Why is this an "exception"? It doesn't seem to say anything else than<br>
> the license already said.<br>
><br>
> > b) Any removal of parts of the attribution (or of the full<br>
> > attribution) required by the section 3.b ("Removing or changing the<br>
> > attribution") shall not be considered a violation of the section 3.a<br>
> > ("Attribution").<br>
><br>
><br>
> Same, this repeats what the license already said. If you think it<br>
> didn't<br>
> say it clearly enough before, then you can fix that.<br>
><br>
> > It is inspired to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported,<br>
> > which, unfortunately, is not available for software (quote from the<br>
> > Creative Commons website: "We recommend against using Creative<br>
> > Commons licenses for software"). The GG1 license is intended to bring<br>
> > the principles of the CC-BY 3.0 license in the world of software.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Well, I used to think CC's advice on this would better be followed, but<br>
> I'm not so sure anymore. Why do you think you can't use CC-BY 3.0, what<br>
> points exactly don't fit your wishes? If there is something, then<br>
> again,<br>
> why doesn't AL2.0 do it?<br>
><br>
> > The most similar license is, of course, the Creative Commons<br>
> > Attribution license itself (version 3.0), but it is not an OSI<br>
> > license.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Your license differs in several points from CC-BY 3.0, as noted, apart<br>
> from the wording, and those points may make your license not compliant.<br>
><br>
> > The most similar OSI-approved license is probably the MIT license.<br>
> > The GG license is different because it requires a different type of<br>
> > attribution (and it provides more information about it). Also, its<br>
> > clauses are more precise.<br>
><br>
><br>
> See above about AL2.0.<br>
><br>
> > The GNU Lesser General Public License shall also be compared to GG1.<br>
> > They are quite similar and LGPL is not a copyleft license. But the<br>
> > GG license requires a stronger type of attribution.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> You're saying LGPL is not a copyleft license. Is this a typo, or how do<br>
> you define copyleft to conclude that LGPL is not a copyleft license?<br>
><br>
> > Unfortunately, since I am not a lawyer, no legal analysis is<br>
> > available<br>
><br>
><br>
> I think not making a legal analysis is not a problem in this case.<br>
> (Others' opinion may, and will, vary.)<br>
><br>
> However, there are related problems, such as the attempt to define<br>
> derivative work.<br>
><br>
> > *Earlier public discussions* Unluckily, there is no public discussion<br>
> > about this license (as far as I know).<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is a problem. Do you have software or intend to write, to place<br>
> under this license?<br>
><br>
> The point of this question is that when you write a license alone or<br>
> mainly you, it's very likely the license will be designed to serve only<br>
> you and not a community.<br>
><br>
> You could propose it to your friends, colleagues, or the internet. You<br>
> can then fix it, before submitting another version for approval, or you<br>
> can find out whether there is any interest (maybe there is, maybe there<br>
> isn't any), or you might find out that there are already licenses who<br>
> fulfill these wishes fairly well.<br>
><br>
> > I do not know whether I have been able to present this license well<br>
> > enough or not<br>
><br>
><br>
> What I didn't quite understand, is what exactly is important to you and<br>
> other (OSI approved) licenses don't do.<br>
><br>
> Except removing attribution per request, but why is that important for<br>
> software? You already have the requirement to mark a derivative as<br>
> distinct from the original.<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0" target="_blank">http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom<br>
> works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-review mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-review mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>