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

[Tim Makarios]

On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 10:25 +0200, Carlo Piana wrote:
> I can't really say it's OSD-compliant as such, 

I'll take each point of the OSD [1] one by one:

1. The NCCL restricts only derivative works of the licenced work, not
aggregations of software from several sources.
2. The NCCL allows distribution of source code as well as of compiled
programs.  The rest of the second requirement is a direct requirement
about the availability of source code, not about the *licence* requiring
source code to be made available.  Yes, someone could release a binary
blob under the NCCL, and that wouldn't make it open source software.
Someone could also release a binary blob under a BSD licence, and it
wouldn't be open source software, either.  But that doesn't stop the BSD
licences from being recognized as open source licences, and it shouldn't
stop the NCCL from being recognized as such, either.
3. The NCCL allows derivative works, and allows (and even requires) them
to be covered by the same licence.
4. The NCCL allows distribution of modified source code and of software
built from modified source code.
5. The NCCL makes no mention of any particular people or groups of
people, and in that way avoids discriminating against them.
6. The NCCL makes no mention of any particular fields of endeavour, and
in that way avoids discriminating against them.
7. The NCCL gives the same rights to anyone who gets a copy of the work
it covers.
8. The NCCL has no requirements about software remaining part of any
particular product or software distribution.
9. The NCCL has no restrictions on what else is or isn't distributed
with covered software.
10. The NCCL makes no mention of any particular technology or interface.

> >> PS: I have expressed an opinion in the past that any copyleft license
> >> which do not ensure access to modified source code is almost totally
> >> moot, at best it's a shareware license. The same applies here.
> > The GPL doesn't require that software it covers is distributed free of
> > charge.  But we see that in practice, its effect *is* almost always to
> > ensure costless access to such software.  Why?  Because the GPL creates
> > a free market in the distribution of the software, and in a perfectly
> > competitive market, the price tends towards the marginal cost, which,
> > thanks to the internet, is effectively zero.  I believe that this
> > economic principle is widely accepted by micro-economists belonging to
> > various political traditions; even the author of The dotCommunist
> > Manifesto has been known to refer to it [3].
> 
> How is this any relevant?

It's an explanation of how a copyleft licence can *ensure* that
something almost always happens without directly *requiring* it to
happen.

The GPL ensures that software it covers is almost always distributed
free of charge; it does this not by requiring this to happen, but by
requiring that anyone to whom the software is distributed (whether or
not they pay for it) has the freedom to redistribute it.

Likewise, the NCCL ensures that the source code of software it covers
will almost always be available; it does this not by requiring this to
happen, but by requiring that anyone to whom the software is distributed
has the freedom to redistribute it, to reverse engineer it, and to
distribute the resulting source code under the NCCL.

In practice, it's very uncommon for people to *actually* have to pay for
copies of GPL-licensed software before it begins to be distributed free
of charge.

In practice, it should be even more uncommon for people to *actually*
have to reverse engineer NCCL-licensed software before its source code
begins to be distributed freely.  Why?  Because someone who requires
payment for distribution of GPL-licensed software benefits when they
receive the payment; but someone who withholds the source code of
NCCL-licensed software has nothing to gain (except, perhaps, a little
time) by forcing people to reverse engineer it.

> Incidentally, the GPL does not require to be distributed free of charge,
> it does not even require software be distributed at all (perhaps such a
> license would not be OSD compliant) . It prohibits to all who are
> distributing GPL software to require monetary compensation for receiving
> the complete corresponding source code, because that right is a
> condition for the copyright grant.
>  
> In my humble experience of advising clients on GPL compliance, this is
> something that many would avoid if it was not required by the license.

Are your clients simply trying to avoid the cost of distributing the
source code?  Or would they prefer to release their derivative works
under a much more restrictive licence, such as one that forbids free
redistribution and reverse engineering?

> Go and ask GPL-violations, or FSF. People KEEP distributing GPL software
> and refusing to comply with the legal requirements of the GPL.

Do these GPL violations involve distributing derivative works under
licences that permit recipients to freely redistribute those derivative
works, reverse engineer them, freely share the results of the reverse
engineering, build further derivative works on top of those results, and
freely distribute those further derivative works?

If so, then those violations would be evidence that the NCCL might not
be effective in ensuring that the source code of derivative works gets
published.

But if not, then those violations are merely examples of how even a
licence that *requires* the publication of source code cannot *ensure*
that it actually happens in a timely manner in every single case.

Tim
<><

[1] http://opensource.org/osd