Free RewardRights License

[Norbert Bollow]

/* This dicussion is about the Free RewardRights License
 * License text:  http://FRRL.info/license
 * Rationale:     http://FRRL.info/rationale
 */

Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:

> you've created a weak copyleft license

Actually I'd call it "semi-strong copyleft", rather than "weak
copyleft", since it guarantees that all derivative works are at
least semi-free.  (For the definition of semi-free software see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html )  In fact the
category of RewardRights licenses provides significant freedom
rights beyond those provided by any existing semi-free software
license that I'm aware of.

> that allows relicensing under a particular proprietary license.

At least according to the FSF's definitions of the terms, the
Non-Free RewardRights Licenses are not proprietary licenses.
They're semi-free.

> appears to allow things that would be illegal if attempted.

I've have fixed the two compatibility clauses which were a
bit carelessly worded so that they could be misinterpreted
in this way.

> urge you to use the unmodified GPLv3 when it comes out.

That is not an acceptable option from my perspective, because
the GPL does not support enough business models to allow GPL'd
software to completely replace all closed-source software.

> >    (b) Combining programs with proprietary "presentation elements"
> >        which don't affect functionality, but which, through providing
> >        different "look and feel" could improve customers' willingness
> >        to pay.
> 
> This is probably already allowed by the GPL under the mere aggregation
> clause.

I'm thinking of situations where there's at least reason to doubt
whether adding the proprietary "look and feel" elements is "mere
aggregation".  Anyone interested in basing a business model on the
idea that people would be willing to pay for a nice "look and feel"
will be very interested in legal certainty about this point.

> If the combination is a derivative work, the presentation
> elements' license would also need to allow the combination.

The typical use of this clause will be that the company which owns the
rights to the presentation elements is the one doing the conveying,
hence there are no worries about license compatibility on that side.

> > and Creative Commons licenses.
> 
> IANAL, but this is misguided, and will probably not be successful.
> First, we only have to consider cases where the combination is a
> derivative work of the CC work; otherwise it is mere aggregation and no
> special permission is required.

Of course there are cases where the clause isn't needed - no
disagreement about that.

> CC Attribution ShareAlike 1.0 requires
> that, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of
> this License" so attempting to distribute part of the derivative work
> under FRRL would be illegal.

You're right, there's no reasonable way to make FRRL compatible with CC
ShareAlike or No-Derivatives licenses; it was a bug of draft 3 that it
claimed to be compatible.  I've fixed that.

> You also attempt to allow linking with Apache.  This may not be legal,
> because FRRL doesn't have the GPLv3's "requiring indemnification of
> licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the
> material" clause.

That clause is not needed in FRRL due to the FRRL having an explicit
linking permission for the Apache License.  (Linking with the Apache
License adds the additional requirement of requiring indemnification
in certain situations which would be a violation of the "no additional
requirements" rule if it weren't for the explicit linking permission.)

> > 3. That the FRRL defines a notion of what it means for recipients to
> >    be "fully empowered to use, modify and convey the Work" and then
> >    defines the conditions for conveying the work in terms of the
> >    requirement that recipients must be "fully empowered to use, modify
> >    and convey the Work".  I hope that this approach will make the FRRL
> >    more robust than the FSF's GPLv3 with regard to changes in the
> >    legal environment that could possibly make some now variants of
> >    tivoisation and/or MS-Novell-like deals possible.
> 
> I don't see why that would be the case.

The GPL says "you may convey if you do X", with X being designed so
that in the current legal environment, it is believed that doing X
results in the users being fully empowered to use, modify and convey
the Work".  This cause-and-effect conclusion is vulnerable to changes
in the legal environment; IMO it is bad engineering to rely on that.
By contrast, the FRRL defines "fully empowered to use, modify and
convey the Work" and then makes achieving that for the recipients a
condition of conveyance.

For an example of how this could turn out to be more robust, imagine
that a new category of "intellectual property rights" gets invented
which is similar in effect to patents so that it would allow the
equivalent of the Novell-Microsoft deal, but distinct from patents
so that the patents provisions of the Dicussion Draft 3 and Final
Call Draft of GPLv3 don't apply.

> Besides, what's the point in strong copyleft it can still be
> converted to a (single) proprietary license?

The point is that even the Non-Free RewardRights Licenses provide
important freedoms.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                    http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG  http://SIUG.ch