[License-discuss] Draft for discussion: Project Tick General Public License v2.0 (only)

[M.samet Duman]

Hello Bruce,  
hello all,

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response. I appreciate the
concerns you’ve raised and would like to address them calmly and directly.

First, regarding the concern that this effectively creates multiple licenses:
the intent is not to create alternative grants or variant licenses, but to define
a single license with a single set of rights, where certain obligations are
triggered only under clearly defined conditions. I want to note that, prior
to submission, the text was refined specifically to reinforce this single-license
model and to make the opt-in nature explicit at the level of obligations, not
permissions.

Your criticism of the use of “may” and of the phrase “treated as conveyance” is
fair. This point was raised during discussion and informed clarifications already
made before submission. That said, I agree that reducing any remaining interpretive
ambiguity around activation mechanisms is important, and this is an area where
further tightening can still be beneficial.

On the scope of Corresponding Resource and the distinction between covered
code and general infrastructure: my goal was to avoid AGPL-style spillover into
unrelated systems, not to introduce endless boundary disputes. The current
language reflects deliberate narrowing based on feedback received, but I
recognize that this balance must be handled carefully to avoid creating new
uncertainty.

Regarding anti-tivoization, the provisions are intentionally narrower than GPLv3’s.
This reflects a conscious design trade-off rather than an oversight, while still aiming
to preserve users’ practical ability to exercise the rights granted under the license.

Finally, on the point about legal counsel: I agree that professionally reviewed license
text is always preferable. At the same time, it is also a reality that not every developer
or small project has the financial ability to retain legal counsel for an extended drafting
process. My approach here has been to incorporate community and expert feedback
iteratively and transparently, and to improve the text accordingly before submission.

While the license has now been submitted for review in its refined form, I view the current
discussion as an important part of validating and stress-testing those improvements. I
sincerely appreciate the time and experience contributors are investing in highlighting
potential weaknesses and risks.

Thank you again for the candid feedback.

Best regards,  
Mehmet Samet Duman  
Author of Project Tick

> Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> şunları yazdı (24 Oca 2026 04:05):
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 6:08 AM M.samet Duman <dumanmehmetsamet at icloud.com <mailto:dumanmehmetsamet at icloud.com>> wrote:
>> 1. Explicit opt-in for network-based source obligations
>> 2. Network operation triggers source availability only, not full conveyance
> 
> So, this is now three licenses, depending upon what you opt in. This is a similar issue to my criticism of Creative Commons licenses. If you say you have a Creative Commons license, nobody has any idea what rights they have other than the right to read the material. You have also left a big door for argument about the inclusion and the clarity of the statement enabling the license feature. The more argument, the more expensive and uncertain any enforcement of the license.
>  
>> > Such operation may be treated as conveyance solely for the purpose  
>> > of triggering the source availability obligations expressly set forth  
>> > in this License, where an Explicit Network Use Notice applies.
> 
> May means "you can, but you don't have to. There should be a single and definite action that activates the terms or not. And "treated as conveyance" is a rather oblique way to say "activates these terms", and can be subject to yet more argument.
> 
> You have also left lots of room for argument about what is general infrastructure, unrelated, independent, proprietary, tightly-coupled, service glue, deployment-specific code. For example, is all of the Debian distribution general infrastructure, every one of 70K packages? 
>> 
>> > Technical mechanisms … are permitted provided that such mechanisms  
>> > do not prevent recipients from accessing, modifying, or conveying  
>> > the Corresponding Resource of the covered Work under the terms of  
>> > this License.
> 
> The anti-tivoi-ization provisions in GPL etc. generally have the effect of making it possible for the platform upon which the software was conveyed to have modified software installed and continue to perform all of its functions. You didn't state enough to make that effective in the language I see.
> 
> Before you actually submitted this as a license, you would have to deal with the GPL copying, and make use of an attorney for the license language. Failure to make use of an attorney is in general a harmful action to developer who use the license, since it would be prone to fail in unanticipated ways, making them incapable of enforcing their copyrights, and subject to various sorts of liability. Making the language suitable for acceptance is probably a year's work, with some expense, don't take it lightly.
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260124/68fc49ed/attachment.htm>