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

[Josh Berkus]

On 08/03/2015 06:05 PM, Tim Makarios wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 17:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> The NCCL is the first proposed license I've ever seen which *encourages*
>> distributors to distribute the code without the license attached.
> 
> In what way does it do that?  I agree that it *allows* such
> distribution, but that's not the same as *encouraging* it.  If you like,
> I could add a non-binding preamble to make it clear that what the
> licence merely allows is not necessarily encouraged.  Perhaps something
> along the lines of "I'm allowed to do anything!  But not everything is
> good" [1].

*shrug*.  You're still missing the point entirely.  Explicitly allowing
the code to be redistributed without a copy of the license is setting up
a licensing entrapment, and there's no two ways about it.

>> you are proposing a radical new thing.  And you have
>> yet, as far as I've seen, to state any real need for it.
> 
> I'm not the first person to want a copyleft version of something like
> CC0 or WTFPL [2], and I probably won't be the last.  I don't claim that
> everyone will suddenly want to switch to NCCL, but I do think there will
> be some people who will at least sometimes prefer it either for reasons
> of principle or merely for the sake of simplicity.

Believe it or not, OSI does not have the mission of making sure that
every single combinatorial leaf node of license possibilities is filled
in.  Quite the opposite: we have the mission of *restricting* the number
of new licenses we approve (and even deprecating existing licenses)
because, all things being equal, having fewer licenses available is a
benefit to the public.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if you can game the
OSD then we're somehow obligated to approve your proposal.  We are not.
 *You* are obligated to prove that your license is open source,
necessary, and well-written.

Therefore, you need to provide:

1. What real need (preferably with project names) is this license
designed to serve?

2. Why are none of the existing mainstream licenses adequate?  Please
address the BSD, MPL, LGPL, and GPLv2 licenses.

3. What legal support do you have to indicate that the innovations you
are making (such as the ability to remove the license but still enforce
original creator rights) have any effect in law?  Please cite
references, or provide the opinion of a qualified attorney.

--Josh Berkus