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

[Carlo]

On 12/08/2015 06:58, Tim Makarios wrote:
> 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.
[...]

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

So I rest my case. Not copyleft. Or, better, aspirational copyleft.

Take copyleft out of your licence, you have something that it's not
better than BSD, and that is not a high yardstick either.

Please stop wasting our collective time on this.

[...]
>> 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.

Frankly, I'm speechless. You seem to be totally missing what a licence
does and is there for, how compliance work is done, how violations
happen, how software is distributed (or conveyed) in real world.

I am excusing myself from this discussion.

Best wishes

Carlo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150812/b4ccaf1b/attachment.html>